Trademark Infringement

January 26, 2018

Trademark Litigation: Florida Court Dismisses Suit Against Indiana Licensing Company Over Honus Wagner Trademark

Miami, Florida – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Honus Wagner Company, filed suit in the Southern District of Florida alleging that Defendants, Luminary Group LLC and Leslie Blair Roberts used the Plaintiff Honus Wagner’s name as an infringement to the Trademark “HONUS WAGNER.” The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida has granted the Defendants Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Plaintiff alleged that, based on a chain of sales and succession, “it owns common law rights in the Honus Wagner name and mark.” Wagner was a famous baseball player for the Pittsburgh Pirates in the early 20^th century. Some of Wagner’s trading cards are among the most valuable pieces of sports memorabilia in the world.

January 16, 2018

Indiana Trademark Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kimball International, Inc. of Jasper, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Jasper Seating Company, Inc. d/b/a Community of Jasper, Indiana infringed its rights on the Indiana State Trademark Registration No. 2017-0052 for the mark “JEWEL.” Plaintiff is seeking an injunction, damages, lost profits, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other relief the Court seems just.

Plaintiff is an Indiana corporation that manufactures furniture for offices, schools, healthcare facilities and hotels. According to the complaint, since August 2015 the Plaintiff has manufactured a line of chairs under the “JEWEL” trademark. Plaintiff has sold the chairs across the country and registered the trademark with the Indiana Secretary of State.

January 12, 2018

Indiana Trademark Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Impact Networking, LLC, of Hammond, and Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Impact Solutions, LLC, of Fishers, Indiana infringed its rights on the United States Trademark registration numbers 2425077 and 2428340. Plaintiff is seeking judgment against Impact Solutions, damages, attorney fees, and costs.

Plaintiff has been in business since 1999, offering IT services. Plaintiff registered two trademarks for its brand, one protecting the word mark “Impact Networking,” and one protecting the company’s logo, which includes the company’s name. According to the complaint, Defendant is also an IT services provider, operating in the same geographic location. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s similar name causes consumer confusion and suggests an affiliation between the two companies. Although Plaintiff’s principal place of business is in Illinois, they have offices in Hammond, Indiana and Indianapolis, Indiana, and do business throughout Indiana. According to the complaint, the two companies are direct competitors in the same geographic area.

November 28, 2017

Indiana Trade Dress Infringement: Owner of Shoe Carnival Trademark Sues over Trade Dress and Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, SCLC, Inc. of Evansville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Marie Kettering of Trenton, New Jersey, and Lanny Tyndall of Enfield, Gansu, Canada, infringed the rights of SCLC. Plaintiff is seeking a nationwide injunction, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff owns the rights to the “Shoe Carnival” trademark, and owns and operates shoecarnival.com. The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate shoe sale websites that infringe upon the trade dress of the Shoe Carnival website, and infringe upon the Shoe Carnival trademark by displaying the registered mark on the websites. Specifically, the Defendants’ websites mimic the “look and feel” of Shoe Carnival’s website, including the layouts, placement of photos, borders, frames, colors, and overall impression. Further, Plaintiff alleges that the offending websites used the “Shoe Carnival” registered mark without permission in an effort to generate sales, which Plaintiff claims has caused consumer confusion.

Practice Tip: Although the Plaintiff alleges personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in the complaint, they do not allege any specific facts, such as infringing sales, which occurred in Indiana. This may cause issues for the Plaintiff in trying to secure personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. In a similar case in 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that an out-of-state business accused of trademark infringement did not have sufficient contacts, arising out of the accused activity, with Indiana to subject it to personal jurisdiction in the state.

November 27, 2017

New York Trademark Litigation: Indiana-Based AM General Sues Activision over Call of Duty Videogame

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, AM General LLC, of South Bend, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Activision Blizzard, Inc., and Activision Publishing, Inc., both of Santa Monica, California and Major League Gaming Corp., of New York, New York; infringed its rights for the Trademark Registrations of HUMVEE and HMMWV and the trade dress of its HUMVEE brand vehicles. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees and costs, and prejudgment and post judgment interest.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s series of Call of Duty videogames have consistently infringed by incorporating and allowing players to control vehicles in-game that, allegedly, infringe on Plaintiff’s real-life protected marks. In the complaint, Plaintiff points to various in-game levels that require the player to control a vehicle that allegedly copies the registered trade dress elements, and other moments in the game where the player sees or interacts with vehicles resembling Humvees. Plaintiff also notes in-game dialogue and marks written on the vehicles that mention “Humvee” specifically.

April 13, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Indianapolis Hair Accessory Merchant Sued for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Her Imports f/k/a EZJR, Inc. sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution and trade dress infringement. The lawsuit names Her Hair, Inc., an Indianapolis hair-extension merchant, as Defendant.

Plaintiff markets and sells wigs, hairpieces and hair accessories. It claims ownership of two trademarks, U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4,631,694 for the word mark “HER IMPORTS” and 5,048,646 for “HER IMPORTS” and design. Both trademarks have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant designed and used a similar mark, asserting that it was intentionally crafted “for the sole purposes of imitating Plaintiff’s Trademark, causing actual confusion among the general public, and attempting to pass itself off as being associated with the Her Imports brand.” Plaintiff further states that Defendant’s trademark has caused actual customer confusion. Defendant’s mark was registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under Reg. No. 5,144,514.

Plaintiff further accuses Defendant of copying its “unique store interior trade dress,” comprising black and white Damask wallpaper along with red trim, in Defendant’s store.

In this Indiana lawsuit, filed by trademark attorneys for Plaintiff, the following claims are made:

Count I: Mark Cancellation 15 U.S.C. § 1064
Count II: Trade Dress Infringement 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (as to the Store Interior)
Count III: Dilution by Blurring — 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (as to Plaintiff’s Trademark)
Count IV: Dilution by Blurring — 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (as to Plaintiff’s Store Interior Trade Dress)
Count IV: [sic] Recovery of Profits, Damages, Costs, and Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)
Count VI: Destruction of Infringing Articles 15 U.S.C. § 1118
Count VII: Injunctive Relief 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1)

Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief, the cancellation of Defendant’s trademark, damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

April 10, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: IHOP and Applebee’s Sued on Allegations of Infringement of Splenda Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Heartland Consumer Products LLC and TC Heartland LLC, of Carmel, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, dilution and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, the Indiana State Trademark Act, and the common law of the State of Indiana.

At issue are trademarks covering Splenda®-brand sweetener, which has been approved for use in over 80 countries and used in more than 4000 products globally. In this Indiana litigation, Heartland claims that some or all of the following trademarks have been infringed: 1544079, 3346910; 4172135, 4165028, 4301712, 4172136, 4165029,4122311, 4187229, 4202774, 4230392, 4238101, 4106164, 4664653, and 4744600. These trademarks have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, Heartland claims ownership of the following pending applications for United States Trademark Registration Serial Nos. 86865337, 87012521, and 87010504.

Defendants in the lawsuit are DineEquity, Inc., Applebee’s Franchisor LLC, Applebee’s Restaurants LLC, Applebee’s Services, Inc., International House of Pancakes, LLC f/k/a International House of Pancakes, Inc., IHOP Franchising LLC, IHOP Franchise Company, LLC and IHOP Franchisor LLC. Plaintiff asserts that all Defendants have a principal place of business in Glendale, California. They are accused of leading customers to believe that they offer Splenda-brand sweetener when they do not. Plaintiff contends that instead of American-made Splenda, the product offered to the customers is, in fact, “a lower-quality product of China.”

Indiana trademark attorneys for Heartland sued in federal court. They assert:

Count I: Common Law Trademark Infringement and Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
Count II: False Designation of Origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
Count III: Unfair Competition
Count IV: Trademark Dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
Count V: Trademark Dilution under I.C. 24-2-1-13.5
Count VII [sic]: Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
Count VIII: Corrective Advertising Damages

Plaintiff asks the court for injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. They also seek various types of damages, including actual, statutory, punitive and treble damages.

March 24, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Bosch Accuses Indiana Man of Counterfeiting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Robert Bosch, GmbH of Stuttgart, Germany and Robert Bosch, LLC of Broadview, Illinois sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false advertising and unfair competition.

At issue in this Indiana lawsuit are the following trademarks, which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:

MARK

REG. NO

REG. DATE

BOSCH

1,637,401

Mar. 12, 1991

633,563

Aug. 28, 1956

Defendants in the litigation are Joshua Rayner of Portage, Indiana as well as ten unnamed “Doe” Defendants. They are accused of “advertising, offering for sale and sale of counterfeit automotive parts” that bear unauthorized copies of Bosch trademarks.
Indiana trademark attorneys for Plaintiffs list the following claims in this federal lawsuit:

Count I: Trademark Counterfeiting in Violation of Sections 32 and 34(d)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act
Count II: Trademark Infringement in Violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act
Count III: Unfair Competition in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
Count IV: False Advertising in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief, including statutory damages, treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

March 13, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Indiana Winemaker Sues for Right to Continue Using “Generations” Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Huber Orchards, Inc. of Borden, Indiana filed a trademark lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. Defendants in the litigation are C. Mondavi & Family (“CMF”) and C. Mondavi & Sons, Inc., both of St. Helena, California. Huber filed the lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that its mark “Huber Winery Generations Indiana Red Wine” does not infringe Defendants’ trademark.

Both Plaintiff and Defendants produce and offer wine products. In February 2017, CMF sent a cease and desist letter to the president of Huber stating that CMF owns a federally registered trademark for GENERATIONS for wine. This trademark has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as U.S. Reg. No. 2,236,517.

In the letter, sent to Huber by a trademark lawyer for Defendants, CMF asserts that Huber’s use of the word “Generations” in conjunction with the sale of wine violates the Lanham Act by infringing and diluting CMF’s trademark. The letter demanded that Huber cease all use of the trademark GENERATIONS in connection with its Huber Winery Generation Indiana Red blend wines. CMF further contended that Huber is liable for injunctive relief, damages, possible treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

Huber contends that it began selling its “Huber Winery Generations Indiana Red Wine” line locally in 1997, two years before CMF registered its trademark, and that it began selling the wine on the internet in 2004. It further asserts that its use of its “Huber Winery Generations” common law trademark does not infringe any trademark in which CMF has right because there is no likelihood of confusion. It asks the court to declare that Huber’s use of “Generations” and “Huber Winery Generations” do not infringe CMF’s GENERATIONS trademark.

March 10, 2017

Indiana Trademark Law: Court Rules for Winnebago on Trade Dress Claims

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. of the Northern District of Indiana dismissed claims concerning trade dress infringement.

In this Indiana trademark lawsuit, Forest River, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana sued Winnebago Industries, Inc. of Forest City, Iowa and its subsidiary Winnebago of Indiana, LLC alleging trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and false and misleading representations.

Overhauser Law Offices, LLC filed a partial motion to dismiss with the court, arguing that Forest River had neither sufficiently identified the features that constituted the claimed trade dress nor provided any factual support for its assertion that such features were non-functional.

The court noted that “to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. The claim is deemed plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

In this litigation, such a showing required that Forest River define its trade dress. It must also plead sufficient facts to show that the claimed trade dress is nonfunctional, has acquired secondary meaning and that a likelihood of confusion exists between its trade dress and Winnebago’s trade dress.

The court agreed with Winnebago, concluding that Plaintiff had relied on “conclusory and meaningless” assertions in its pleadings. Consequently, it granted Winnebago’s motion and dismissed without prejudice Forest River’s claims concerning trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) as well as similar claims made under common law.

Overhauser Law Offices represented Winnebago in obtaining this successful order dismissing the trade dress claims.