New Litigation

July 7, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Former School Employee Sues Alleging Copyright Infringement

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Plaintiff Angela Brooks-Nwenga of Fort Wayne, Indiana, acting pro se, filed two intellectual property lawsuits. The two complaints, comprising hundreds of pages, include allegations of copyright infringement.

Defendants in these lawsuits, both filed in the Northern District of Indiana, are National Heritage Academies, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan and “Bart Peterson’s The Mind Trust” of Indianapolis, Indiana. Bart Peterson, the former mayor of Indianapolis, co-founded The Mind Trust in 2006.

Plaintiff Brooks-Nwenga alleges that Defendant National Heritage Academies infringed her rights in “Transitioning Into Responsible Students” (“TIRS”), which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. TX-6-628-223. Plaintiff asserts that she developed and piloted this program at Gambold Middle School in 2002 and that she owns the copyright.

The second lawsuit makes similar allegations of copyright infringement of TIRS against Defendant Bart Peterson’s The Mind Trust. Plaintiff contends that “Andrew Brown Education Model” and “Bridges to Success Model” are replicas of her copyrighted work.

Brooks-Nwenga previously sued The Mind Trust, United Way of Central Indiana, Central Indiana Education Alliance, Phalen Leadership Academies, and Indianapolis Public Schools asserting similar misconduct. That lawsuit, also filed in the Northern District of Indiana, was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages and costs.

June 30, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Author Sues Publisher Contending Unapproved Cover Artwork Used

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – A copyright lawyer for Plaintiff Antara Murdock of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant Author Solutions, LLC of Bloomington, Indiana committed copyright infringement.

Murdock, who is also known as Antara Shaddod, contracted with Author Solutions in 2009 to publish his written work, “Journey to Consciousness; Who Am I?,” which included cover artwork created also created by Murdock. According to the complaint, these works have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. TXu-001821785.

This Indiana litigation arises from a dispute regarding the artwork on the cover of Murdock’s book, which Author Solutions published and marketed for Murdock. Murdock contends that he was dissatisfied with the artwork as the cover for his book and that he relayed this concern to Author Solutions. The complaint states that Author Solutions had asked Murdock to sign to approve the final version of the book, including the art on the cover. In e-mails with the company, Murdock asserted that a signature, which related to the cover artwork and was purportedly his, was fraudulent.

In this federal lawsuit, Murdock contends that, by unlawfully publishing an unapproved draft of his book, Author Solutions “willfully used Plaintiff’s copyrighted Works without his permission and that it published, communicated, benefited through, posted, publicized and otherwise held out to the public for commercial benefit, the original and unique work of Plaintiff without Plaintiff’s consent or authority, and acquired monetary gain and market benefit as a result.”

The complaint lists a single count, copyright infringement. Murdock asks the court for statutory damages of up to $150,000, along with injunctive relief, costs and attorney’s fees.

June 24, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Fitness Studio Operator Accused of Trademark Infringement, Fraud

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – A Massachusetts trademark lawsuit filed in July 2015 was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Plaintiff Get In Shape Franchise, Inc. (“GIS”), a Massachusetts-based franchisor, alleges that Defendants TFL Fishers, LLC and its sole member, Rosalyn Harris; Thinner For Life, Inc.; and Fit Chicks, LLC, all of Fishers, Indiana infringed its intellectual property rights. GIS asks the Indiana federal court: (1) to order the discontinuation of Defendant’s infringement of its registered trademarks; (2) for injunctive relief due to breach of contract, unfair competition and breach of the covenant of good faith; (3) to order compliance by Harris of her post-contractual obligations.

GIS sells fitness franchises under the service mark “Get In Shape For Women.” Registration Certificates for Plaintiff are as follows:

MARK	Reg. No.	Reg. Date
“Get in Shape for Women”	Service Mark Reg. 3,374,173	Jan. 22, 2008
“Your treatment is complete”	Service Mark Reg. 4,241,902	Nov. 13, 2012
“Get in Shape for Women Small Group Personal Training”	Service Mark Reg. 4,249,694	Nov. 27, 2012

Plaintiff contends that it entered into such a franchise agreement with TFL Fishers and Harris in April 2013 for use in the Fishers, Indiana market. This agreement provided for payment to the franchisor of a transfer fee as well as a royalty on the franchise’s gross sales. Plaintiff contends that, pursuant to the agreement, Harris also agreed to various restrictions on her activities, including prohibitions on certain activities that would compete with GIS.

According to the complaint, Harris notified GIS on June 24, 2015 that TFL Fishers was discontinuing its franchised business and had closed its Fishers fitness studio. Instead, contends Plaintiff, it discovered on June 30th that the Fishers studio continued to operate but that it had changed its name to “Fit Chicks.” GIS alleges that this was improper. It also accuses Defendants of other wrongful acts, such as willfully underreporting total sales and, consequently, underreporting the royalty fees due to GIS.

Trademark attorneys for Plaintiff list the following claims for the Indiana federal court’s review and adjudication:

• First Cause of Action: Violation of the Lanham Act
• Second Cause of Action: Breach of Contract – Injunctive Relief
• Third Cause of Action: Breach of Contract – Damages
• Fourth Cause of Action: Breach of the Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealings
• Fifth Cause of Action: Unjust Enrichment
• Sixth Cause of Action: Unfair Competition

• Seventh Cause of Action: Fraud

Plaintiff seeks damages, including treble damages, along with enforcement of the franchise agreement, equitable relief, attorney’s fees and costs.

June 23, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana sued Defendant Alliance Hospitality Management, LLC of Raleigh, North Carolina in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement.

Bell, an Indiana copyright attorney and professional photographer, asserts that Defendant infringed his intellectual property rights in a photo of the Indianapolis skyline entitled “Indianapolis Photo,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office as Registration No. VA0001785115.

In this Indiana litigation, which Bell filed on his own behalf, a single count of “Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition” is listed. Bell asks the court to award the maximum statutory damages allowable, asserting that Alliance Hospitality Management has infringed willfully and “with oppression, fraud, and malice.” Bell seeks injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Bell is a frequent litigant in Indiana federal courts and has been discussed here on numerous occasions. See:

• 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

June 22, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Folding Tricycle Alleged to Infringe Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Newton Enterprises Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong Kong filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant Singleton Trading Inc. of Brooklyn, New York committed patent infringement.

In this Indiana litigation, Singleton Trading, which does business as Elama and Blue Spotlight, is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,568,720 (the “‘720 Patent”) for a “wheeled vehicle.” The patent covers a wheeled vehicle, such as a tricycle, that can be folded from an in-use position to a storage position for ease of carrying.

Newton Enterprises claims that Singleton Trading has infringed and/or induced others to infringe the ‘720 Patent by “making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, a foldable tricycle that practices at least one invention claimed in the ‘720 Patent.” It lists as an example of such infringement Defendant’s “Zoom Bike.”

In a complaint filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, a single claim is made: “Infringement of ‘720 Patent.” Plaintiff further claims that Defendant’s infringement has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages in addition to compensatory damages. Plaintiff also asks that the court award attorney fees and costs.

June 20, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Botanic Gardens Asserts Infringement of 91-Year-Old Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Plaintiff Indiana Botanic Gardens, Inc. of Hobart, Indiana sued Defendant Snyder Manufacturing Corporation of Long Beach, California, which does business as Eurospa Aromatics and Eurospa Chemicals, alleging trademark infringement and related causes of action.

At issue in the lawsuit is U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,327,965 for the trademark EUCAMINT for camphorated ointment. Plaintiff states that it owns this registration, which was issued April 2, 1985. It also states that the mark was first used in commerce in 1925. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s use of EUCAMINT to market an aromatic shower mist infringes its trademark.

This litigation, filed by Indiana trademark lawyers for Plaintiff, asserts the following causes of action:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count II: Unfair Competition Under Federal Law

• Count III: Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Under Indiana Law

Plaintiff Indiana Botanic Gardens claims that Defendant Snyder Manufacturing acted intentionally and willfully in an attempt to trade upon the goodwill of the EUCAMINT trademark. Plaintiff asks that the court order the payment of damages, including punitive damages. It also seeks equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

June 13, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Architecture Firms File Four New Infringement Lawsuits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Copyright attorneys for Plaintiff Design Basics LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed four new infringement lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana.

The first lawsuit lists Heller & Sons, Incorporated d/b/a Heller Homes and Heller Development Corporation of Fort Wayne, Indiana as Defendants. They are accused of infringing the following architectural works, which have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista VA 282-203 & 752-162
Plan No. 1380 – Patterson VA 314-024 & 726-379
Plan No. 1748 – Sinclair VA 371-214 & 726-353
Plan No. 1752 – Lancaster VA 371-204 & 756-041
Plan No. 24077 – Baisden VA 1-044-287 & 1-042-002

Plaintiff Design Basics was joined in this lawsuit by a second Plaintiff, W. L. Martin Home Designs LLC of Jacksonville, Florida. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ infringing plans are “Arthur Williams,” “David Mathew 2,” “Greyson,” “David Mathew 1” and “Spencer 5.”

The second lawsuit was filed against Defendant Slattery Builders LLC of Fort Wayne, Indiana. It is accused of infringing the following copyrighted works:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 8520 – Mindoro VA 1-074-913 & 1-082-723
Plan No. 42065 – Hepburn VA 1-671-719 & 1-921-774

Design Basics contends that Defendant is infringing with two plans, “Savannah” and “Oakhurst.”

The third lawsuit, filed against Ideal Suburban Homes, Inc. of Roanoke, Indiana asserts infringement of the following works:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 8093 – Kirby Farm VA 729-227, 729-218 & 1-432-411
Plan No. 8095 – Sun Valley VA 729-290 & 729-256

Defendant’s accused plans are entitled “Double Eagle” and “Calloway.”

In the final lawsuit, Design Basics was joined by two additional Plaintiffs, W. L. Martin Home Designs as well as Plan Pros, Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska. Defendants in this lawsuit, all Indiana entities, are: Fireside Homes Inc.; Fireside Development Company, LLC d/b/a Fireside Homes Development Company; Harth Homes, Inc.; Willies Development Corporation; and Oakbrook Homes, Inc. d/b/a Juniper Homes, Oakbrook Homes, Willie’s Oakbrook Homes and Riverview Lumber and Building Supply Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs contend that the following intellectual property has been infringed:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 2226 – Wycliffe VA 434-195, 889-020 & 1-926-485
Plan No. 2245 – Tyndale VA 434-205, 710-606 & 1-924-168
Plan No. 2377 – Leighton VA 485-142, 757-614 & 1-942-396
Plan No. 2578 – Kaiser VA 524-251, 710-606 & 1-928-399
Plan No. 2761 – Mayberry VA 513-792, 710-606 & 1-926-488
Plan No. 2907 – Ashley VA 624-090, 624-091 & 826-741
Plan No. 2952 – Francis VA 624-098, 624-099 & 784-226
Plan No. 8030 – Burton Place VA 729-255 & 748-980
Plan No. 8093 – Kirby Farm VA 729-218 & 729-227

In this complaint, the following plans are accused: The Concept Home, Model 1400, Model 1200, Model 1600, Model 1650, Model 1700, Model 1900, Model 1800, Model 1300, Model 1478, Model 1759, Model 1971, and Model 2295.

Design Basics seeks damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

June 9, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Richard Bell, a copyright lawyer and professional photographer, filed three more lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendant in the first lawsuit is Progressive Urban Management Associates of Denver, Colorado. The second lawsuit lists National Healthy Start Association of Washington, D.C. as Defendant. In the third lawsuit, an individual, Chris Young, is listed as Defendant.

In each of these lawsuits, Bell asserts copyright infringement of a photo, entitled “Indianapolis Photo,” which has been registered as Copyright Registration No. VA0001785115 by the U.S. Copyright Office. Each complaint also lists a count of unfair competition.

As with prior complaints, Bell asserts not merely copyright infringement but willful conduct, contending that Defendants in each lawsuit acted “with oppression, fraud, and malice.” He seeks the maximum statutory damages allowable as well as injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees from all Defendants.

Practice Tip: Bell, who has filed numerous lawsuits in recent years alleging infringement of the “Indianapolis Photo” as well as the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo” (the latter is not at issue in any of these lawsuits), has been discussed on this site before. See:

• Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• 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

June 6, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Brew Pub Accused of Infringing Use of Yeti Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Plaintiff Great Divide Brewing Company of Denver, Colorado filed an infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant Red Yeti Brewing Company, Inc. of Jeffersonville, Indiana.

Defendant is listed in the complaint as the owner of a restaurant and brewery named “Red Yeti Brewing Co.” a/k/a “Red Yeti Restaurant and Brewpub.” The complaint asserts that Red Yeti Brewing Co. wrongfully employs the term “Yeti” and a yeti design in its marketing.

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Red Yeti’s conduct infringes two of its trademarks, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,957,257 for a Yeti word mark and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,115,050 for a Yeti design mark. Both have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff asserts that Red Yeti’s actions constitute a deliberate attempt to trade upon Defendant’s goodwill and reputation and that its actions are willful and malicious. In this Indiana federal lawsuit, filed by trademark lawyers for Plaintiff, the following claims for relief are listed:

• Trademark Infringement in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
• Unfair Competition – False Designation of Origin in Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
• Federal Dilution
• Common Law Unfair Competition
• Common Law Trademark Infringement

• Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of C.R.S. § 6-1-113

Great Divide seeks damages, including punitive damages, along with equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

May 27, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Design Basics Files Two New Copyright Lawsuits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Northern District of Indiana – Trademark counsel for Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed two new copyright infringement lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana alleging infringement of copyrighted architectural plans.

The first lawsuit, filed in the Fort Wayne Division, lists two Defendants, Westport Homes of Fort Wayne, Inc. and Westport Homes, Inc. They are accused of infringing Plaintiff’s “Plan No. 3090 – Jarrett,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration Nos. VA 624-154 and 624-153. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ infringing plans are marketed under the names Fairfield and Fairmont.

The second lawsuit was filed in the Hammond Division against Defendant Precision Homes, Inc. doing business as Precision Construction, Inc. and Precision Homes of Indiana, Inc. A second Plaintiff, W.L. Martin Home Designs LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, was listed in this lawsuit.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs state that Precision Homes offers six architectural plans, which are offered under the names Richmond, Raleigh, Durham, Kara, Abigail and Auburn, that infringe upon copyrighted works. Plaintiffs state that three copyrighted plans were infringed: “Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista,” Copyright Registration Nos. VA 282-203 & 752-162; “Plan No. 3588 – Stratman,” Copyright Registration Nos. VA 682-254, 682-253 & 756-041; and “Plan No. 24120 – Langlade,” Copyright Registration No. VA 1-073-400.

In both cases, the court is asked to order damages, equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.