Articles Posted in Trademark Infringement

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.Pic

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.

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.picture2-1-224x300BCWPic-279x300

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.

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.

Picture1My 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.

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.

PicThe 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.

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” andPic-5 “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.

Pic-4AWGI, LLC and Atlas Van Lines, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) have filed a lawsuit against Atlas Mover Group LLC (“AMG”) and United Best Moving LLC (“UBM”) (“Defendants”) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants are unlawfully using the “Atlas” mark, which is associated with decades of goodwill and recognition in the moving and storage industry.

According to the complaint, Atlas Van Lines was founded in 1948 and has become a globally recognized brand, with over 430 independent agencies and partners in 140 countries. They own trademarks related to “Atlas,” which have been heavily promoted through advertising, online presence, and community engagement. Over the years, Atlas has built a reputation for high-quality service and earned substantial goodwill in its marks.

Defendants AMG and UBM are accused of using the “Atlas” name and logo on their website, and in their marketing materials. Plaintiffs argue that this usage creates confusion among consumers, who mistakenly believe AMG’s services are affiliated with Atlas Van Lines. Plaintiffs allege that this unauthorized use dilutes the distinctiveness of the Atlas Marks and harms their business reputation.

Plaintiff Forest River, Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Defendant Sharpline Converting, Inc. over claims of willful trademark infringement. Forest River, a leading manufacturer in the recreational vehicle (RV) industry, argues that Sharpline’s partnership with inTech Trailers, Inc., a direct competitor, has significantly harmed its brand identity and reputation.

Founded in 1996, Forest River is well-known for producing high-quality RVs, including travel trailers and cargo trailers. In a Previous Lawsuit, the company was awarded $5.56 million in damages after a federal court found that inTech Trailers had willfully infringed on Forest River’s trademarks—specifically the DELLA TERRA mark and the unique Forest River Mountain logo. The situation is compounded by the fact that both companies target the same customer base and utilize similar dealership networks, making it easier for consumers to become confused.

PicSharpline operates a manufacturing facility in Elkhart, Indiana, where it provides design and branding services to inTech. Forest River contends that Sharpline willfully and knowingly contributed to inTech’s infringing activities while designing, creating, and manufacturing the “Terra” and new mountain design graphics for inTech’s infringing Terra Travel trailers. Forest River further claims that the relationship between Sharpline and inTech has led to market confusion, undermining the significant investment Forest River has made in marketing its products.

On September 19, 2024, Judge Damon R. Leichty in the United States District Court of Northern Indiana granted Forest River, Inc. enhanced damages after a September 2023 jury found that inTech Trailers, Inc. infringed on its mountain design trademarks for recreational vehicles.

In 2021, Forest River, Inc., a major RV manufacturer, sued inTech for violating two of its trademarks- DELLA TERRA and the mountain design logo. In September 2023, a jury unanimously ruled in favor of Forest River, awarding $2 million and determining that willful infringement had occurred.DellaTerraTrailor

Forest River requested enhanced damages because InTech’s infringement was willful.  The Court began its decision by quoting a famous case in which a trademark registration for THIRST-AID was found to be infringed by the slogan “Gatorade is thirst aid”:

Mia Lind, the plaintiff and creator of the Delaware brand “Hot Girl Walk,” filed a lawsuit against Casey Springer, accusing Springer of infringing on her trademark with a local version of thepic-1 concept called “Hot Girl Walk Indianapolis.” Lind’s “Hot Girl Walk,” which originated during the pandemic, is a women’s-only mental health walk that has been trademarked and commercialized through merchandise and sponsorships.

Inspired by Lind, Springer launched a similar initiative in Indianapolis. Initially called “Hot Girl Walk Indy,” it was later rebranded as “Hot Walk Indy.” Lind’s lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, business disparagement, and defamation.

Springer contended that her initiative was distinct and non-commercial, designed as a free community event. She argued that Lind’s trademark protects specific brand elements but does not cover the broader concept of a group walk.

Lancaster, South CarolinaNutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. (collectively known as “Nutramax”) have filed suit against Indiana company, Abumayyaleh Bros, LLC.  The Plaintiffs allege multiple intellectual property violations including trademark infringement, unfair competition, and tortious interference with contractual relationships.

Pic-226x300According to the complaint, Nutramax contends that Abumayyaleh Bros, LLC is reselling Nutramax products, specifically their Proviable®-DC Digestive Health Supplement Capsules, on Amazon without authorization. The Plaintiffs are concerned that the products bear Nutramax’s well-known trademarks, such as PROVIABLE and NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, but do not adhere to the stringent storage, distribution, and customer support standards set by Nutramax for its authorized resellers.

Nutramax asserts that the defendants’ unauthorized use of their trademarks constitutes a trademark infringement violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)). By selling products under the Nutramax Marks without authorization, the Plaintiffs claim the defendants are causing consumer confusion regarding the source and authenticity of the products.

Contact Information