Intellectual Property Law

February 19, 2024

Paws, Patents, and Proceedings: The case of Kennels & Kats v. Delomo

Plaintiff Excelencia Importing Pty Ltd. d/b/a Kennels & Kats (“K&K”) brought forth a complaint against Defendant Jinping Leng d/b/a Delomo (“Defendant”). The core allegation was that the Defendant, through inequitable conduct, obtained U.S. Patent No. D827,946 for a “Pet Grooming Glove,” a design that was allegedly already in circulation in the United States before the patent application. The complaint contended that the Defendant deliberately failed to disclose this information to the USPTO during the patent’s prosecution.

The legal action claimed that the Defendant’s failure to disclose prior art during the patent prosecution process was intentional. K&K, an online retailer specializing in pet supply products, alleged that the Defendant was fully aware of the materiality of the omissions, which rendered the design in the Asserted Patent unpatentable. The complaint suggested that, had the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) been aware of this information, the patent would not have been granted.

The complaint further asserted that the Defendant, despite knowledge of the invalidity of the Asserted Patent, made false infringement claims to Amazon against K&K. This action resulted in the suspension of K&K’s Amazon listings, causing immediate harm to its business. The ramifications of such suspension on an online retailer’s revenue and reputation are substantial, especially given Amazon’s market dominance.

February 2, 2024

CONNEX(T) Clash: Ventris Medical vs. Nexxt Spine Trademark Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In a recent legal action, California-based Plaintiff Secada Medical LLC, doing business as Ventris Medical, LLC, has filed a complaint against Defendant Nexxt Spine, LLC alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.

Court documents state that Ventris has expertise in creating, promoting, and distributing advanced tissue and bone healing solutions tailored to meet the specific requirements of different surgical fields. Ventris claims to have actively advertised and sold items bearing the CONNEXT® brand for numerous years. They allege that Nexxt Spine, and Indiana company, is violating Ventris’ trademark by using a similar mark, CONNEXX, for their own surgical implant kits.

The crux of Ventris’ complaint lies in the similarity between the CONNEXT® mark and Nexxt Spine’s CONNEXX mark, with the only difference being the final letter (“T” vs. “X”). Ventris asserts that both marks are used in connection with highly related surgical products and are targeted at the same consumers within the medical community, thus increasing the likelihood of confusion among consumers regarding the source or affiliation of the products.

January 29, 2024

An Illuminating Battle Over Trade Dress Rights: Dekko, Inc. vs. Metro Light & Power, LLC

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Group Dekko, Inc. and its subsidiary, Furnlite, Inc., have initiated legal proceedings against Metro Light & Power, LLC. The crux of the dispute lies in allegations of trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, with Dekko and Furnlite seeking a declaratory judgment to invalidate Metro’s claims.

Metro Light & Power, LLC, based in Teaneck, New Jersey, has accused Dekko and Furnlite of infringing upon its trade dress rights. Specifically, Metro contends that Dekko’s Furnlite products bear a striking resemblance to Metro’s Bezel products, leading to consumer confusion. Metro has threatened legal action unless Dekko and Furnlite cease production and sales of their allegedly infringing products.In response to Metro’s allegations, Dekko and Furnlite have taken a firm stance, denying any wrongdoing. They assert that their products do not infringe upon Metro’s trade dress rights. Moreover, they argue that trade dress protection does not extend to functional features of a product, and they maintain that their own design patents predate Metro’s establishment.

Central to the dispute is the validity of Metro’s trade dress. Trade dress protection applies to the overall appearance of a product, but only if it serves as a source identifier and is non-functional. Dekko and Furnlite contend that Metro’s trade dress lacks distinctiveness and does not function as a source identifier. They argue that the design features highlighted by Metro serve functional purposes rather than acting as distinctive identifiers.

January 26, 2024

Diamonds in Dispute: Shima’s Legal Battle Against SRT for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

China – Plaintiff Guangzhou Shima Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. (Shima), a Chinese corporation specializing in home improvement items and building materials, has brought legal action against Shenzhen Ruimingxiang Technology Co., Ltd. (SRT) for alleged copyright infringement.

Shima, led by President Wentong Liu, claims it has carved a niche in designing and selling distinctive products. It goes onto explain that in 2004, Liu created a graphic work known as the “Diamond Tile,” a unique square or rectangular tile featuring a three-dimensional design composed of various diamond-like elements, which he had copyrighted with the United States Copyright Office in 2017.

According to the complaint, Shima is accusing SRT, another Chinese corporation (who happens to do business in Indiana), of importing, distributing, and/or selling copies of Liu’s “Diamond Tile” work on Amazon.com. Shima alleges that SRT’s actions amount to willful infringement, resulting in substantial financial losses.

January 22, 2024

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC Sues Indiana Restaurant/Bar, La Jalisco, LLP In Cable Piracy Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, a California-based heavyweight in sports distribution, claims they owned exclusive distribution rights to the . They have brought suit against Defendant La Jalisco LLP, the owner and operator of a commercial restaurant and bar in Indianapolis, accusing them of illicitly showcasing the coveted Program.

Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605(a) specifically “prohibits the unauthorized interception, receipt, publication and use of communications, including satellite television signals.” G & G contends that La Jalisco LLP violated this law by knowingly and willfully advertising the viewing event on Facebook, intercepting the signal, and exhibiting the unauthorized Program within their establishment.

G & G is seeking statutory damages, claiming willful violations for commercial advantage. They seek an amount for each violation, alongside recovery of full costs and attorneys’ fees. In addition, Plaintiffs are asking for compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages.

January 15, 2024

Tap Wars: Delta Faucet Company’s Patent Dispute with Sanitary Ware

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In the modern era of technological advancements and the burgeoning landscape of online commerce, the interconnection of patent law with the dynamics of e-commerce platforms presents intricate challenges. A recent legal dispute between Wenzhou Xin Xin Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd. (“Sanitary Ware” or “Plaintiff”) and Delta Faucet Company (“DFC”) illuminates the complexities faced by international entities selling products on major online platforms like Amazon, particularly concerning allegations of patent infringement.

According to the complaint, Sanitary Ware, a Chinese-based company operating as “HGN Sanitary Ware,” sells kitchen appliances and accessories, including glass rinsers, primarily through the Amazon Marketplace. Court documents also describe DFC, as an American plumbing fixture manufacturer under Masco Corporation, who is alleging patent infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 11,473,277 (“the ‘277 Patent”) against specific Xin Glass Rinsers listed by Sanitary Ware on Amazon.

DFC claims ‘277 Patent details a rinsing apparatus comprising components like a mounting base, fluid discharge member, valve member, and escutcheon. DFC says they initiated an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) proceeding against Sanitary Ware’s Xin Glass Rinser based on claim 1 of the ‘277 Patent, and Sanitary Ware chose not to participate in the APEX, leading Amazon to remove the listing of the disputed Xin Glass Rinser.

January 1, 2024

Copyright Infringement in the Digital Age: Watson Music Group v. Borshoff, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In the contemporary digital landscape, the protection of intellectual property, especially in the realm of creative works, has become a paramount concern. Copyright infringement, the unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted material, continues to pose significant challenges for creators and rights holders. A recent case involving Plaintiff Watson Music Group, LLC. d/b/a Quadrasound Music and Defendant Borshoff, Inc. sheds light on the complexities and legalities surrounding copyright infringement in the digital sphere.

Plaintiff Watson Music Group, a Florida-based limited liability company, alleges that Defendant Borshoff, Inc., an Indiana corporation, infringed upon its copyrighted musical work titled “Space Jam.” The alleged infringement occurred on Defendant’s social media account ‘@borshofftalks’ hosted on Facebook.

The complaint describes an unauthorized posting of a discernable excerpt of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted musical work on the Defendant’s Facebook account. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, without obtaining proper permission or authorization, reproduced, stored, and made available the copyrighted material for public performance via a digital audio transmission, thereby violating the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights as a copyright holder.

December 25, 2023

Protecting Creative Rights: Alexander Bayonne Stross v. Homestead Properties, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

A recent lawsuit, Stross v. Tiny Timbers, involves a copyright infringement dispute between Alexander Bayonne Stross, a photographer and owner of copyrighted works, and Homestead Properties, Inc. dba Tiny Timbers, a hardwood products manufacturer. Stross alleges that Tiny Timbers unlawfully used his copyrighted photograph for advertising and promotional purposes on Homestead Properties’ website without his authorization.

Stross has filed a complaint against Tiny Timbers citing violations of the Copyright Act, specifically alleging unauthorized copying, distribution, and removal of copyright identification. He asserts that his work was registered with the Copyright Office and contains identifiable copyright management information, which was removed by Tiny Timbers when they allegedly used the image without permission.

Seeking recourse, Stross pursues both injunctive relief to prevent further infringement claims and monetary damages or profits resulting from the alleged unauthorized use of his copyrighted work. Additionally, he requests attorney’s fees and other remedies provided for under the Copyright Act.

December 4, 2023

Unraveling the Legal Knot: Copyright Infringement and the UFC Broadcast Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., a Pennsylvania-based corporation, alleges ownership of exclusive distribution rights for broadcasting premier sporting events, including the Ultimate Fighting Championship® (UFC). Through agreements with copyright holders, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. claims they obtained authorization to exhibit UFC 246: McGregor vs. Cowboy.

Defendants, comprising LNH, LLC operating in Burlington, Indiana as Burlington Pizza/The Barn, along with Neal D. Harmon and Loriann Harmon, allegedly exhibited UFC 246 at their commercial establishment without the required authorization from Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. The plaintiff claims that this action violated licensing requirements and involved unauthorized access to the Program through various means, including cable, satellite, or internet streams.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. asserts satellite and cable piracy violations under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553, claiming that the defendants intercepted satellite signals or used unauthorized cable signals to broadcast the Program, contravening federal laws regulating such transmissions. Joe Hand also Alleges infringement of its exclusive distribution rights under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501), contending that the defendants exhibited the copyrighted Program publicly without proper authorization, violating intellectual property laws.

December 1, 2023

Court Order in HeathSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Defendants in trademark infringement case, HealthSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc. and Beth Porter have initiated a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, they have requested the case be transferred to the Northern District of California.

The dispute before Indiana Judge Matthew P. Brookman involves the use of the trademark SWEET NOTHINGS. In the midst of the case, Defendant Beth Porter initiated a separate lawsuit in California against HealthSmart, claiming fraud and unfair competition. Defendants argue that the defenses in the Indiana case overlap with Ms. Porter’s claims in the California case, indicating evidence and witness overlap as grounds for the case to be transferred. However, after careful consideration, the Court DENIED the Defendants’ request to transfer the Indiana case to the Northern District of California.

As for the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the judge stated that the issue revolves around whether Defendants’ contacts with Indiana justify personal jurisdiction. Defendants conceded that Sweet Nothings has minimum contacts with Indiana, but the parties disputed the significance of these contacts, the consideration of third-party retailer contacts, and whether exercising jurisdiction aligns with fair play and substantial justice. The Plaintiff argued that Sweet Nothing’s website, offering shipping options to Indiana, actively engaging with Indiana consumers, and facilitating sales through Amazon to Indiana residents, demonstrates purposeful conduct directed towards the Indiana market. Judge Brookman agreed with the Plaintiff and DENIED the Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.