New Litigation

October 11, 2018

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Indiana Company, Veridus Group, Inc., Seeking Declaratory Judgment of Trademark Non-Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Veridus Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana for a declaratory judgment against Defendant, Strategic IP Information Pte Ltd. (“SIP-IP”) of Irvine, California, that Veridus Group has not infringed SIP-IP’s rights in United States Trademark Registration No. 5,294,263 for the mark VERI-SITE. Plaintiff is seeking declaration and judgment, damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and any other relief the Court may deem appropriate.

This case arose after the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a cease and desist letter alleging that Veridus Group was infringing on their federal trademark. SIP-IP provides internet and brand management services, which include certification systems to “help ad networks and publishers identify website hosting content without authorization.” Veridus Group runs a site certification program designed to help professional property developers mitigate risk and to help end-users in increasing the speed to market and improving the value and marketability of a site or building. They utilize the mark VERISITE for marketing and sales purposes related to their site certification services and related goods.

Veridus Group claims that the Defendant does not have an exclusive right over the word “VERISITE” in connection with Plaintiff’s business activities as they are significantly different from those of SIP-IP. Further, Plaintiff alleges that even if Defendant did have exclusive ownership in this manner, the services and goods are marketed in such different channels of trade and with both companies working with sophisticated purchasers, there is not a likelihood of confusion for the origin of the services and/or goods. As there is an actual case and controversy as to whether Plaintiff is infringing Defendant’s mark in violation of the Lanham Act and as to whether the Plaintiff engaged in unfair competition at the federal or state common law level, Plaintiff is seeking a declaration of the rights of the parties in connection with the mark VERISITE.

October 4, 2018

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Indiana Company, Tribal-Care Insurance LLC, Sued for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Alliant Specialty Insurance Services, Inc., of San Diego, California, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Tribal-Care Insurance LLC of St. John, Indiana, has and continues to infringe its rights in the TribalCare trademark. Plaintiff is seeking an injunction, damages, statutory damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees in addition to other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

The Plaintiff alleges that the TribalCare mark was first used in interstate commerce on or about May 24, 2010 by HealthSmart Holdings, Inc. The mark was registered on November 29, 2011 as United States Trademark Registration No. 4,062,744. Just before the mark was officially registered, on or about October 7, 2011, HealthSmart and Alliant came to an agreement that would allow Alliant to use the TribalCare trademark.

According to Alliant, HealthSmart learned of the Defendant’s use of the mark “Tribal-Care” in late 2015 or early 2016. After HealthSmart discovered the allegedly infringing use, they sent a cease and desist letter to Tribal-Care on January 8, 2016. Defendant filed a petition to cancel HealthSmart’s registration in the United States Patent and Trademark Office before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on August 17, 2016. As a result, HealthSmart assigned the trademark rights in the TribalCare mark to Alliant so they could be substituted into the cancellation action for litigation.

September 21, 2018

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Indiana’s Chicks On The Right Sued for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Gabriella Bass of Brooklyn, New York, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, COTR, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana, infringed her rights in United States Copyright Registration No. VA 2-055-082. Plaintiff is seeking damages, statutory damages, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

The copyright at issue in this case is that for photographs of the fearless girl statue in New York City with the addition of a urinating dog. Bass licensed the photographs that she took to the New York Post. They subsequently ran an article featuring the photographs on May 29, 2017 with Bass listed as the photographer. Following the release of the New York Post article, COTR ran an article on their website featuring Bass’ photographs. COTR, however, failed to license the photographs from Bass or obtain her permission or consent to publish the photographs in their article.

Bass is suing for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501 for COTR’s unauthorized use of her photographs. She is seeking damages and statutory damages for this violation for up to $150,000 per work infringed under 17 U.S.C. §504. Bass also alleges that COTR violated 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b) by removing copyright management information identifying Bass as the photographer. Statutory damages under this violation fall under 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(3) and amount to at least $2,500 up to $25,000 per violation.

August 31, 2018

Indiana Patent Litigation: Indiana Corporation Sued for Patent Infringement Involving Programmable Security Systems

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, InVue Security Products Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Mobile Tech, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Technologies Inc. and MTI, formerly known as Merchandising Technologies, Inc. of Hillsboro, Oregon, but incorporated in Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 10,062,266, (the “‘266 patent”) for a “Programmable Security System and Method for Protecting Merchandise”. Plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, judgment awarding InVue a reasonable royalty, prejudgment interest, and other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

Chief executive officers for both parties met in person on April 11, 2018 to discuss the defendant’s Intellikey 3.0, its Gateway products, and other potentially infringing items “Accused Items”. The plaintiff provided defendant with a copy of at least Claim 1 of the pending ‘266 patent, informing them that the Intellikey 3.0 would infringe the claims of the ‘266 patent when issued. The application for the ‘266 patent published on August 16, 2018 and the ‘266 patent issued on August 28, 2018, just before the Complaint was filed.

The first cause of action in the Complaint is for direct infringement of the ‘266 patent as MTI manufactures, offers for sale, sells, imports, and/or uses the Accused Items. Second, contributory infringement of the ‘266 patent is alleged as the Accused Items are not staple articles of commerce, are not suitable for a substantial non-infringing use, and are especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘266 patent. Third, infringement by inducement because the defendant sells the Accused Items to customers with the intent that they will use and operate them in a manner that infringes the ‘266 patent. Finally, plaintiffs claim that defendants should be held liable for pre-issuance damages as they were aware and had actual notice of the patent application after it published.

August 7, 2018

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Attorney Bell Strikes Again Suing The Association for Behavior Analysis, Inc. for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, The Association for Behavior Analysis, Inc., infringed his rights to the “Indianapolis Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the US Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115. Plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and any other relief as is just and proper.

Bell has sued many in Indiana federal courts asserting copyright infringement on his own behalf. See:

In this case, Defendant created a website for their business to promote an Indianapolis convention [http://hoosieraba.com/category/Indianapolis]. Plaintiff alleges Defendant published the Indianapolis Photo on that site without his permission. Bell has fully controlled his photograph from 2000 and registered it with the US Copyright Office in 2011. He discovered this alleged infringement of his photo in May 2018 with the use dating back to 2014. The Plaintiff not only alleges copyright infringement, but also vicarious liability for each copy of his photograph downloaded by third-parties from the Defendant’s website.

August 6, 2018

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Bell Sues Indiana Pool Table Moving Company for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana –Plaintiff and Attorney, Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Harold Fischer, infringed his rights to the “Indianapolis Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the US Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115. Plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper.

Bell is notorious for filing many lawsuits on his own behalf asserting copyright infringement in Indiana federal courts. He has published or licensed the Indianapolis Photo in compliance with copyright laws since March 2000. The photograph was first published online on August 29, 2000 by Bell on his Web shots account. Almost eleven years later, Bell registered the photograph with the US Copyright Office.

Defendant, Fischer, created a website for his Indianapolis-based business at http://pooltablemoving.com/. It is alleged that he committed copyright infringement by including the Indianapolis Photo on his website from 2016 to 2018 without properly licensing from Bell. The Plaintiff also claims that Fischer is vicariously liable for each downloaded copy of the Indianapolis Photo by any third-party user from the business website.

July 31, 2018

Texas Copyright Litigation: Indiana Photographer Sues Texas Company for Unauthorized Use of Photograph

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Houston, Texas – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Larry G. Philpot of Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Texas alleging that Defendant, RCC Holdings, LLC of Houston, Texas, infringed the freelance photographer’s concert photograph of Ted Nugent. Plaintiff is seeking permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, statutory damages, prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and other relief to which he is entitled.

Philpot has filed many lawsuits on his own behalf asserting copyright infringement in Indiana federal courts. Having been unsuccessful in defending against motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in those cases, he is now suing with the help of legal counsel where the defendants are each located. See:

In this case, Philpot, took a photograph of Ted Nugent on July 31, 2013. On August 15, 2013, Philpot registered the work with the United States Copyright Office under Certificate Number VAu 1-164-624. Almost one month later, Philpot displayed the photograph on the Wikimedia website. Philpot offered the use of this photograph under a Creative Commons license, which allows members of the public to use the photo as long as Philpot is given proper credit among other requirements.

July 30, 2018

Indiana Copyright Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Corlinea, LLC of Chandler, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Drostes Jewelry Shoppe Inc. (“Droste”) of Evansville, Indiana, and Shah Diamonds, Inc., D/B/A Shah Luxury (“Shah”) of New York, New York, infringed rights in United States Copyright Registration No. VAu 1-301-361 the “HEARTY LOVE” design and United States Copyright Registration No. VAu 2-093-049, the “HEARTLINES LOVE PENDANT” design. Plaintiff is seeking an award for damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and other relief as determined proper by the Court.

Corlinea’s principal, Sheryl Lutz-Brown, first began designing the works in question in 2016. Her concept was to find a unique way to incorporate the word “love,” and subsequently other words, into a heart shape with a continuous line. Corlinea is the owner by assignment of both of the copyright registrations in question here and has all rights, title, and interest in all causes of action for infringement.

In November 2016, Sheryl met with Droste concerning her new design to help guide her to a reputable manufacturer for her jewelry. After meeting in person, Sheryl provided a .eps file of her design to Droste to be sent to the manufacturer for a quote. The original quote for the CAD design and making of the first piece in Sterling Silver was $300.00, which Sheryl paid the following day. Over the next several months, Sheryl created at least five other designs and worked with Droste to fine tune each of them and have the CAD drawings and prototypes developed. While Sheryl had already paid $9,714.53 to Droste and had another $14,000.00 ordered, Droste refused to supply an invoice for Corlinea.

July 27, 2018

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Oakley Sues Indiana Company for Trademark Infringement and Dilution

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Oakley, Inc. of Foothill Ranch, California, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Swami Property Sunman Inc., d/b/a Sunman BP of Sunman, Indiana, Chirag Patel, an individual, and Does 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”) infringed its rights in United States Trademarks as seen below:

Plaintiff is seeking judgment against Defendants, preliminary and permanent injunctions, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and investigatory fees.

Oakley has been a successful manufacturer and retailer of eyewear since at least 1985. During that time, they have acquired many trademarks including, but not limited to those pictured above (collectively, the “Oakley Marks”). Plaintiff has utilized the Oakley Marks to distinguish their high quality products from those of others and their consumers have come to recognize their distinct marks.

Plaintiff filed this action after discovering counterfeit products bearing infringing Oakley Marks were being offered for sale and/or sold at a gas station with a convenience store operating under the name of “SUNMAN BP.” It is Oakley’s belief that the Defendants are selling and offering for sale these counterfeit products with the intent that they will be mistaken for genuine high quality Oakley eyewear even though the Defendants are not licensees of Oakley nor have they been given the authority to use the Oakley Marks.

July 26, 2018

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Indiana Resident Sued by California Company over Professional Wrestling Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lightning One, Inc. of Sherman Oaks, California, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Nicholas P. Harmon of Lake Station, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration Nos. 4375013 and 4349360 for NATIONAL WRESTLING ALLIANCE, and Trademark Registration No. 5418415 for the Logo associated with NATIONAL WRESTLING ALLIANCE. All of these registered marks will be referred to collectively as the “NWA Marks.” Plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, an accounting and judgment, treble damages, punitive damages, and costs including attorneys’ fees.

Lightning One has been involved in the professional wrestling world for seventy years with its NWA Marks being used in interstate commerce as early as 1948. They allege that not only do they have the rights in the federally registered trademarks, they also have strong common law rights based off their prior use. Plaintiff discovered that Harmon was posting videos and other social media content claiming to be “The Real NWA World’s Heavyweight Champion” and “The People’s NWA World’s Heavyweight Champion” in April 2018. Harmon also utilized a logo to promote his services that was allegedly intended to be confusingly similar with that of the registered NWA logo.

After discovering the infringing content, Lightning One sent Harmon a cease and desist letter. Instead of complying with the letter, Harmon posted his interactions with Lightning One on social media and continued using the NWA Marks. A further demand letter sent by Lightning One was also not complied with. In fact, Defendant made a Facebook post saying that he was intending on selling t-shirts using the mark N.W.A shortly after the letter. While he claims it was for his favorite rap group of the same initials, the background of this case seems to show differently.