Trademark Infringement

February 21, 2025

RestoPros Files Lawsuit for Trademark Infringement and Breach of Agreement in Restoration and Remediation Dispute.

RestoPros Franchising, LLC, a North Carolina-based company specializing in restoration and mold remediation services, has filed a lawsuit against Indiana company, SFTS Services, Inc. and its owners, Dale L. Bailey and Brandy M. Bailey. The lawsuit accuses the Baileys of trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices, and breaching their franchise agreement with RestoPros. Specifically, RestoPros alleges that the Baileys used its registered trademark “RESTOPROS” and confidential business information to launch a competing business, “Restore and Renew Professionals,” after leaving the RestoPros franchise. The Baileys are also accused of improperly using RestoPros’ branding, phone numbers, and customer reviews for the new business, while failing to adhere to various terms of the franchise agreement, including payments and territorial restrictions.

Despite multiple cease-and-desist requests, the Defendants reportedly ignored RestoPros’ attempts to settle the matter outside of court. RestoPros is seeking damages for breach of contract, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Additionally, the company is requesting an injunction to prevent the Defendants from continuing to use its trademarks or operate their competing business.

The case has been assigned to Judge Matthew P. Brookman and Magistrate Judge Kellie M. Barr in the U.S. District Court of Southern Indiana Case No. 1:24-cv-02171.

February 14, 2025

BTL Industries Files Lawsuit Against Be Minked Beauty for Patent and Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

BTL Industries, Inc. (BTL) has filed a lawsuit against Be Minked Beauty & Company LLC and its owner, Britney Humphrey, accusing them of patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. BTL, based in Massachusetts, develops and sells technology used for body-contouring treatments. Their EMSCULPT® and EMSCULPT NEO® devices use electromagnetic energy to tone muscles and have become leaders in the aesthetic industry.

According to the Complaint BTL holds a patent (Patent No. 10,478,634) for the technology used in these devices and has multiple registered trademarks for names like EMSCULPT® and HIFEM®. The company alleges that Be Minked is selling a device called the “Emsculpt RF Machine” that infringes on BTL’s patent. Additionally, BTL says Be Minked is using their trademarked names, such as “EMSCULPT” and “HIFEM,” without permission on their website.

BTL reportedly sent Be Minked a cease & desist letter about the infringement but says the company ignored it. BTL is now asking the court to stop Be Minked from using its patented technology and trademarks, and they want financial damages, including a minimum of $125,000 for the alleged patent violation. They’re also asking for a permanent ban on Be Minked using any of BTL’s trademarks or confusingly similar names and for the company to pay for BTL’s legal fees. BTL is also seeking to shut down Be Minked’s website and freeze their bank accounts.

February 3, 2025

Valve Wars: Indiana Rivals Banjo and Green Leaf Clash Over Trademarks, Domains, and Market Power

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indiana-based companies, Banjo Corporation and Green Leaf, Inc., are again in litigation over their crossing business of manufacturing and selling valves and pipe fittings. The original complaint brought forth by Banjo, still pending, was for trademark infringement with Green Leaf’s use of the color yellow on their liquid handling valves. Now Green Leaf is suing Banjo for the use of domain names and trademarks. According to the complaint, Green Leaf has consistently used its registered United States federal trademarks, Green Leaf® and TerreMax®, to identify its products in commerce. Green Leaf’s various word marks and a design mark are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office under Nos. 2,642,074, 6,901,382 and 2,642,068.

Green Leaf claims that committed trademark infringement and cyberpiracy by registering several domain names identical or confusingly similar to Green Leaf’s trademarks, including but not limited to the domain names greenleafvalve.com and terremaxvalve.com. It is alleged that these domain names were registered in 2019 by Banjo for the purpose of redirecting consumers to Banjo’s website. Green Leaf insists that Banjo acted in bad faith, attempting to ride on the coattails of good will established by Green Leaf® and TerreMax®.

The complaint also alleges that Banjo renewed these domain names in 2024, continuing to possess the domain names and continuing to divert consumers through them until November of that year. Once the diversion ceased, Green Leaf moved to amend an existing lawsuit with a cyberpiracy counterclaim. The motion was denied, but the court indicated it could bring the claim in a separate action, which it has now done.

January 31, 2025

Plaintiff Jumpstart Communications LLC Files Complaint Against Former CEO for Alleged Misconduct, Trademark Infringement, and Fraudulent Activities

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Plaintiff Jumpstart Communications LLC has filed a complaint against Defendants Ryan V. Jumper and Jumpstart Communication LLC, for alleged misconduct and violations of federal law. According to the complaint, Defendant Jumper, a founding member and former CEO of Jumpstart Communications, established a competing company with a similar name and logo, allegedly to harm the business he co-founded. The complaint describes a series of actions by Defendant Jumper, including unauthorized access to business accounts, misappropriation of funds, and attempts to divert customers, employees, and resources to the competing entity.

Jumpstart Communications is a telecommunications construction company that is headquartered in Indiana and was founded in 2020. It reportedly rapidly expanded its operations to several states and booked over $10 million in revenue in 2023. However, the complaint describes how Defendant Jumper’s behavior became erratic, beginning in April 2024, with accusations of theft, unauthorized password changes, and siphoning of funds from company accounts. Defendant Jumper is also accused of taking deliberate steps to interfere with the company’s operations, such as locking out other members from critical business systems and submitting fabricated documents.

The complaint further alleges that Defendant Jumper formed a competing entity, Jumpstart Communication LLC, which operates in the same territories using a similar brand as Jumpstart Communications and then misled customers and business partners by taking payments and resources and even went so far as to commit fraudulent acts such as filing false address changes with the U.S. Postal Service and IRS.

January 24, 2025

Eric Emanuel’s EE Holding Group Takes Legal Action Over Counterfeit Scandal, Targeting Social Media Reseller

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Carmel, Indiana – EE Holding Group LLC has filed a lawsuit against PDGROWTH LLC and Patrick D. Garton. The claims include trademark counterfeiting, infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under both federal and common law.

Led by designer Eric Emanuel, the plaintiff asserts ownership of trademarks such as ERIC EMANUEL and the EE logo: . These trademarks have been in use since 2014 and are associated with high-quality sportswear, particularly the signature EE mesh shorts.

Defendant Garton, who operates under the Instagram handle “pd.resells,” is accused of selling counterfeit goods that bear the plaintiff’s trademarks. These goods, sourced from China, are marketed as indistinguishable replicas. Garton sells these products through social media, the website https://thesupplyr.com/, and other platforms, allegedly profiting significantly from these sales. The plaintiff claims Garton not only sells counterfeit items but also teaches others how to profit from similar activities.

January 6, 2025

Delta Faucet Fights Back: Lawsuit Against Amazon Storefront Targets Unauthorized Sales, Trademark Violations and Brand Damage

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Delta Faucet Company, a prominent manufacturer of kitchen and bathroom fixtures, alleges that Justin and Andrew Bundrick engaged in unauthorized sales of Delta-branded products via Amazon storefronts “SummitMerch” (previously “BunjiSolutions”) and “A.B.Sales”. The company claims these products failed to meet their quality standards and did not include the official warranty, thereby violating trademark laws under the Lanham Act and constituting unfair competition.

Delta contends that the defendants’ sales of defective or subpar goods resulted in negative reviews, consumer confusion, and damage to Delta’s reputation. Despite receiving cease-and-desist letters, the defendants reportedly continued to sell non-genuine products. Test purchases indicated improper packaging and the absence of Delta’s warranty.

Delta argues that these unauthorized sales amount to trademark infringement and unfair competition, as the products differ significantly from authentic Delta items. The company is seeking injunctive relief, asserting that these sales harm its brand value and erode consumer trust.

December 23, 2024

BCW Takes a Stand Against Ultra Pro’s Trademark Infringement Claims in Card Protection Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

BCW Diversified, Inc. (BCW) has filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Ultra PRO International, LLC (Ultra Pro) seeking a court declaration that BCW’s conduct does not infringe, dilute, or constitute unfair competition regarding Ultra Pro’s alleged trademarks for plastic trading card holders. Specifically, BCW contests Ultra Pro’s claims over marks such as TOPLOADER, PENNY SLEEVES, PRO-BINDER, MINI SNAP, CHROMAFUSION TECHNOLOGY, and DECK VAULT, which BCW argues are either invalid or unprotectable.

The case originates from Ultra Pro’s demands for BCW to stop using these terms, claiming they infringe upon its trademarks. BCW denies any wrongdoing, maintaining that the terms in question are generic, non-infringing, and commonly used in the industry for specific types of card protectors. BCW claims their product offerings, which include top loaders, penny sleeves, mini snaps, and other protective trading card items, have been in use for over thirty years and are not intended to serve as trademarks. BCW emphasizes that these terms are used descriptively and are not likely to confuse consumers regarding the source of the products.

BCW’s position is that Ultra Pro’s claims lack legal foundation. For example, BCW argues that Ultra Pro’s registration of marks such as TOPLOADER and PENNY SLEEVES should not be considered valid as they are generic terms that have been in common use long before Ultra Pro’s registration. Additionally, BCW alleges that Ultra Pro has failed to prove that its marks are famous enough to support a claim of trademark dilution under the Lanham Act. BCW also challenges Ultra Pro’s attempt to enforce exclusive rights in phrases like “CHROMAFUSION TECHNOLOGY,” arguing that this term is merely descriptive of a process and not a distinctive trademark.

December 13, 2024

Identity Crisis: My Market, LLC Fights Batth Market’s Alleged Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

My Market, LLC, (Plaintiff) an Indiana-based convenience store operator, has initiated legal proceedings against Batth Markets, Inc. and Chhaterpal Singh (Defendants) for the unauthorized use of its trademarked business name. The lawsuit, filed under the Lanham Act and related Indiana state laws, addresses issues of trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution. My Market claims that Batth Markets’ use of the name “My Market” has caused confusion in the marketplace, posing a threat to the reputation My Market has built through years of branding and business development.

My Market, LLC has been operating as a convenience store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and holds a federal trademark for the service mark “MY MARKET FISH · CHICKEN SANDWICHES · SHRIMP” (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,935,101), which was granted on December 27, 2022. This trademark is used to identify My Market’s services, particularly in the food industry. According to the complaint, on July 9, 2024, My Market’s counsel uncovered that Batth Markets had fraudulently obtained a Certificate of Assumed Business Name, allowing them to operate under the name “My Market” in Kingston, Indiana. This certificate was obtained through an allegedly forged letter, which gave Chhaterpal Singh permission to use the “My Market” name. The letter, purportedly signed by Mark owner, Mohammad A. Ghaffar, was neither authorized nor signed by him, and he claims no knowledge of it being filed.

The lawsuit claims that Batth Markets’ use of the “My Market” name infringes upon My Market’s federally registered trademark. My Market argues that the two businesses are highly similar in name, appearance, and the products they offer, including fried chicken, sandwiches, and other convenience store goods. This, according to the complaint, is likely to confuse customers into believing that Batth Markets is affiliated with or endorsed by My Market. The complaint further states that Batth Markets’ actions are deliberate and exploit My Market’s established goodwill, a claim supported by Batth Markets’ acknowledgment in the fraudulent letter that Ghaffar’s consent was needed to use the name. My Market also asserts that this confusion has resulted in financial harm, including lost sales and reputational damage.

December 6, 2024

Protecting the LEGACY: Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Legacy Family Chiropractic

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Legacy Chiropractic, LLC, has filed a complaint against Legacy Family Chiropractic LLC, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related claims. The complaint centers around Defendant’s alleged unauthorized use of the “LEGACY” trademark, which Plaintiff asserts is integral to its business and reputation. Since 2018, Plaintiff has operated Legacy Chiropractic in Shipshewana, Indiana, building a strong reputation for quality care, and the LEGACY mark has become a valuable asset attracting patients from across the U.S. and Canada.

The complaint states that despite Plaintiff’s established use of the LEGACY mark, Defendant, based in Warsaw, Indiana, began offering chiropractic services under the same name. In late 2019 or early 2020, Rebekah Franklin, the wife of Defendant’s CEO, contacted Plaintiff to inquire about purchasing the trademark, but Plaintiff declined. Defendant subsequently opened its clinic in March 2020, continuing to use the LEGACY mark. Defendant also registered the domain mylegacyfamilychiro.com in June 2020, incorporating the mark further into its marketing. Plaintiff claims that this has caused market confusion and that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s prior trademark rights.

Plaintiff’s legal claims include violations of the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competition, along with claims of cybersquatting due to Defendant’s use of the domain name. Plaintiff also seeks relief under Indiana state law for unfair competition and requests the cancellation of Defendant’s state trademark registration for “LEGACY FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC,” arguing it was obtained in bad faith.

November 29, 2024

Trail of Trouble: Hiker Industries Sues Hyk Outdoors Over Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hiker Industries, LLC (“Hiker”) has filed a lawsuit against Hyk Outdoors LLC (“Hyk”), alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under both federal and state laws. The complaint focuses on the use of marks by Hyk that Hiker claims are confusingly similar to its own registered trademarks. Hiker has been in the business of designing and manufacturing customizable trailers for over a decade, earning a reputation for quality and durability. Hiker contends that Hyk’s use of the marks “HYK OUTDOORS” and “HYK DESIGN” has led to consumer confusion, with potential customers mistakenly associating Hyk’s products with Hiker.

The lawsuit asserts that Hyk, which began using its marks in 2020, is unfairly capitalizing on the reputation that Hiker has built with its own trademarks, specifically the “HIKER TRAILER” and “HIKER DESIGN” marks. According to Hiker, its years of investment in the trailer business have led to the development of a strong brand identity, which is at risk due to the similarities between the two sets of marks. Hiker claims that this confusion has resulted in lost sales and damage to its reputation, as consumers may believe that Hyk’s products are affiliated with Hiker.

Hiker is the registered owner of the “HIKER TRAILER” and “HIKER DESIGN” marks, which are used in connection with trailers and related goods. These marks have been featured in advertising, on product labels, and on apparel, contributing to Hiker’s brand recognition. Hyk, a company formed in 2019, began using its similar marks more than a decade after Hiker had first established its own. Despite this timeline, Hiker claims that the use of these similar marks by Hyk has caused confusion in the marketplace, leading to harm for Hiker’s business.