South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., of Feasterville, Pennsylvania filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, MBK Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Matey’s Restaurant & Bar, of Michigan City, Indiana, Bryan Konieczny, and Mark Kehoskie, both individuals residing in Indiana, infringed its rights in the “UFC 202: Diaz v. McGregor 2”, “UFC 203: Miocic v. Overeem”, “UFC 205: Alvarez v. McGregor”, “UFC 207: Nunes v. Rousey”, “UFC 208: Holm v. de Randamie”, and UFC 210: Cormier v. Johnson 2” (“the Programs”). Plaintiff is seeking statutory damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.
Articles Posted in Intellectual Property Law
Indiana Trademark Litigation: Arizona Bathroom Company Sues Indiana Franchisee
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Re-Bath, LLC, of Phoenix, Arizona originally filed suit in the Marion Superior Court alleging that Defendants, Alternative Construction Concepts, LTD. d/b/a Re-Bath Designs of Indianapolis, of Indianapolis, Indiana, Steven O’Reilley of Indianapolis, Indiana, and Deborah O’Reilley of Indianapolis, Indiana of infringing trademark rights. Plaintiff is seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction and all other just and proper relief.
Defendant is a franchisee of Plaintiff’s Phoenix-based business. As part of the franchise agreement, Plaintiff allowed Defendant to use its trademarks, goodwill, concepts, operating systems, confidential information, method of operation and technical expertise and know-how to operate a bathroom remodeling business.
Indiana Patent Litigation: Texas Pharmaceutical Company Sues Indiana-Based Roche
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Blue Sky Networks, LLC of Plano, Texas filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Roche Diabetes Care, Inc., of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed its rights in United States Patent Nos. 6,484,027, (“the ‘027 Patent”), 6,865,372, (“the ‘372 Patent”), 8,265,691, (“the ‘691 Patent”), 8,346,169, (“the ‘169 Patent”), and 8,792,828 (“the ‘828 Patent”). Plaintiff is seeking judgment, damages, and attorneys’ fees.
According to the complaint, “The Asserted Patents are directed to wireless mobile devices, such as handsets, peripherals, and computing devices, that operate via wireless short-range direct communication with other wireless devices. Such devices may also be enabled for simultaneous operation on a wireless network…and wireless short-range direct communication with other wireless devices.”
Indiana Copyright Litigation: Bell Sues Atlanta-Based Real Estate Developer Over Indianapolis Photo
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, ROI Property Group Management, LLC, infringed its rights in the “Indianapolis Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the US Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115. Bell seeks injunctive relief along with statutory damages, costs and attorney fees.
Bell has filed many lawsuits on his own behalf asserting copyright infringement in Indiana federal courts. See:
- Indianapolis Real Estate Agent Sued for Infringing Copyright of Photo
- Limousine Service Sued for Copyright Infringement
- Bell Sues Shuttered Auto Repair Shop for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
- Copyright Attorney Shifts to Alleging Infringement of Different Photo
- Attorney/Plaintiff Accuses Wisconsin Analytics Firm of Copyright Infringement
- Bell Names Aramark in Latest Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
- Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator
- Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline
- Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
- Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
- Lawsuit by Frequent Copyright Litigant Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
- Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
- Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
- Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
- Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
- Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
- Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
- Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
- Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
- Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
- Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
- Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint
- Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
Bell’s lawsuit against the Defendant stems from Defendant’s alleged use of the copyrighted photo on its commercial website. Plaintiff claims that Defendant used the picture without authorization in November 2017, and the use continued through December 2017.
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not request or receive permission or authorization to use the photo, and instead claimed it owned the copyrights of all images appearing on its website.
Plaintiff has formally alleged copyright infringement and violations of the Lanham Act.
Indiana Copyright Litigation: Bell Takes Aim at Indiana-Based Bank in Latest Lawsuit
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Merchants Bank of Indiana, infringed its rights in the “Indianapolis Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the US Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115. Bell seeks injunctive relief along with statutory damages, costs and attorney fees.
Bell has filed many lawsuits on his own behalf asserting copyright infringement in Indiana federal courts. See:
- Indianapolis Real Estate Agent Sued for Infringing Copyright of Photo
- Limousine Service Sued for Copyright Infringement
- Bell Sues Shuttered Auto Repair Shop for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
- Copyright Attorney Shifts to Alleging Infringement of Different Photo
- Attorney/Plaintiff Accuses Wisconsin Analytics Firm of Copyright Infringement
- Bell Names Aramark in Latest Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
- Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator
- Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline
- Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
- Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
- Lawsuit by Frequent Copyright Litigant Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
- Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
- Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
- Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
- Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
- Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
- Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
- Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
- Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
- Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
- Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
- Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint
- Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
According to the complaint, the Defendant used the copyrighted photo on its business website without authorization. Plaintiff states that in November 2017, he found the unauthorized use of the photo through a Google image search.
Plaintiff claims that the Defendant recklessly claimed ownership of the photo by claiming copyrights to all photos appearing on its website.
Plaintiff has formally alleged copyright infringement and violations of the Lanham Act.
Italian-Based Luxury Eyewear Manufacturer Files Suit Against Indiana Businesses Alleging Infringement of Rayban Trademark
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Luxottica Group S.p.A of Mason, Ohio and Oakley, Inc., of Foothill Ranch, California filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Avni Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Delaware BP of Osgood, Indiana, Pari, Inc. d/b/a Batesville Food Mart of Batesville, Indiana, Rani Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Batesville Shell, and Sai Petroleum Inc. d/b/a New Point Food Mart of New Point, Indiana infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration Nos. 650,499, 1,093,658, 1,726,955, 1,080,886, 1,490,305, 2,718,485, 1,320,460, and 3,522,603 all with the Owner of Luxottica Group S.p.A. Oakley, Inc., is the owner of Trademark Registration Nos. 1,521,599, 1,984,501, 1,990,262, 3,331,124, and 3,365,728. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.
Luxottica is an Italian-based corporation that manufacturers and sells luxury eyewear under the “Ray-Ban” trademark. Oakley is a subsidiary of Luxottica that also produces high-end eyewear under the “Oakley” name.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Dismissal of Claims against Subaru of America
Marilyn D. Mintz of Northern California, had filed a Trademark infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California alleging that Subaru of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation with place of Business in the State of New Jersey, infringed a phrase and design trademarked by Plaintiff.
Defendant Subaru, which has a large manufacturing presence in Lafayette, Indiana, ran an ad campaign with the slogan “Share the Love.” Plaintiff alleged that this infringed her trademarked phrase, “A World of Love, for You and Those You Love.” In the ad campaign, Plaintiff also used a graphic design showing a hand with a heart on it. Plaintiff alleged that this infringed a similar design she trademarked.
Southern District of Indiana Grants Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Against Richard Bell
Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana, had filed a Copyright infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Jay L. Hess, an individual, of Bloomington, Indiana, infringed the “Indianapolis Photo” taken by Plaintiff.
Bell has become well-known for constantly filing copyright infringement claims regarding a photo of the Indianapolis skyline that he took in 2000. See the following:
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Defendant, Nike, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
Jacobus Rentmeester of Westhampton Beach, New York, had filed a Copyright infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon alleging that Nike, Inc., an Oregon Corporation with place of Business in Beaverton, Oregon infringed a photograph taken by Plaintiff.
The photograph at issue in this case was the iconic photo of Michael Jordan upon which the “Air Jordan” brand logo is based. In the photo, taken by Nike shortly after Jordan was drafted by the Chicago Bulls, Jordan is seen mid-air, reaching towards a basketball hoop with the ball in his left hand and his legs spread. In the background of the photo is the silhouette of the Chicago skyline, with the dusk sky above it. The photo formed the basis for the famous Jordan Brand logo, which is a white silhouette of Jordan’s shape in the photo against a black background.
Indiana Trademark Litigation: Klipsch Sues Audiosurplus on Basis of Trademark Infringment
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Klipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Audiosurplus, infringed its rights in United States Trademark Nos. 978,949, 2,917,215, and 3,863,511. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, Audiosurplus’s profits and damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Plaintiff is an Indiana-based audio equipment company that manufactures high-end speakers, headphones, subwoofers, and a variety of other items audio items. Defendant is an online retailer that sells audio equipment on Amazon. The three trademarks involved in this case are for the “KLIPSCH” brand name. Plaintiff sells its products across the country through contractually authorized retailers. Plaintiff is suing because Defendant is not an authorized Klipsch retailer, but has allegedly been selling Klipsch products through its online store without permission.