Trademark Infringement

May 12, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Usage of “Hyperpure” Alleged to Infringe Hydrapure Trademark

Hammond, Indiana – A trademark attorney for Plaintiff NIBCO Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana commenced trademark infringement litigation in the Northern District of Indiana.

Defendant in the litigation is Legend Valve & Fitting, Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan. It is accused of infringing NIBCO’s HYDRAPURE trademark, which has been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under Trademark Registration Nos. 4,296,125 and 4,314,186 in conjunction with the sale of metal pipe fittings.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s use of HYPERPURE to market its goods creates an identical commercial impression to Plaintiff’s HYDRAPURE trademark. Calling Defendant’s use “a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation” of its own trademark, Plaintiff states that Defendant’s use of HYPERPURE will confuse consumers as to the source of the goods.

Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Legend chose the HYPERPURE mark in bad faith in an attempt to associate Defendant’s products with Plaintiff’s trademark and, in so doing, appropriate the goodwill that Plaintiff has built in the brand.

In this Indiana lawsuit, a trademark lawyer for NIBCO lists the following claims:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count II: Federal Unfair Competition/False Designation of Origin
• Count III: Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition

• Count V: Federal Trademark Dilution

NIBCO asks the court for equitable relief; damages, including punitive damages; costs and attorney fees.

May 6, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Klipsch Alleges “Grey Market” Seller Infringed Klipsch Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana trademark lawyer for Plaintiff Klipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana sued Defendant Steve Myers d/b/a HumanAudio in the Southern District of Indiana on allegations of trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Defendant HumanAudio, an eBay seller with its principal place of business in Studio City, California, is accused of offering “grey market” Klipsch products to the public. Klipsch contends that HumanAudio advertises “brand new” Klipsch audio products for sale via Defendant’s eBay store. However, Klipsch states, Defendant’s products are materially different from those purchased from an authorized distributor because the sale through Defendant’s unauthorized store voids the warranty that Klipsch normally provides to the original purchasers of its products. Klipsch also contends that HumanAudio removed the serial numbers on Klipsch goods and replaced them with fake serial numbers.

Klipsch alleges that Defendant has infringed three KLIPSCH trademarks: U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 978,949; 2,917,215 and 3,863,511. In this Indiana federal lawsuit, the following claims are made:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114

• Count II: Federal Unfair Competition in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

May 4, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: RV Maker Asks Court to Settle Dispute over “Edge” Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Plaintiff Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC of Elkhart, Indiana filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana. Defendant is Universal Trailer Cargo Group, Inc., which also does business as Haulmark Trailers. Haulmark Trailers operates locations in Elkhart and Bristol, Indiana.

Plaintiff states that Defendant Haulmark has manufactured and sold race car trailers that are offered under the trademark THE EDGE. Recreational vehicles manufactured and sold by Plaintiff Heartland under the brand EDGE are alleged by Defendant to infringe upon Defendant’s trademark rights.

At issue in the litigation is Haulmark’s trademark, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,338,373 for the brand THE EDGE, which applies to “towage storage trailers.” Also at issue is Plaintiff’s pending trademark registration, Application No. 86/768,274 for the brand EDGE, as applied to “recreational vehicles, namely fifth wheels; recreational vehicles, namely toy haulers; recreational vehicles, namely travel trailers.”

While Heartland’s application was passed to publication without any objection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s trademark examining attorney, Haulmark later informed Heartland that it was opposing the registration of EDGE as applied to Heartland’s goods. A trademark lawyer for Haulmark threatened litigation for “federal claims for trademark infringement” if Heartland did not cease and desist use of the EDGE trademark.

Plaintiff Heartland seeks a declaratory judgment, stating that Haulmark’s threat of litigation has made the dispute ripe for judicial resolution. It asks the court to conclude, given “the actual use of the term EDGE by the parties, the differences between the goods and the markets for the goods of each party to which that term is applied, as well as the price of the respective goods and the channels of trade for each party’s goods,” that there is no likelihood of consumer confusion arising from Heartland’s concurrent use of EDGE as a trademark for its goods.

Heartland asks the court to declare that its use of the term EDGE, as applied to its products, is not an infringement upon any of UTC’s rights and that Haulmark’s THE EDGE trademark should not be construed so broadly as to cover recreational vehicles.

May 2, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Federal Lawsuit Filed Over Use of “Co-op” Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana trademark attorneys for Countrymark Refining and Logistics, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a trademark lawsuit against Coop Fuels Inc. of Morrisville, North Carolina. The complaint asserts direct and contributory trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act as well as claims under Indiana law.

At issue are two trademarks owned by Countrymark, U.S. Registration Nos. 2,657,529 and 2,679,308 for the CO-OP trademark, which have been registered with the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Defendant Coop Fuels is alleged to have infringed these trademarks by using “coop” to market its competing products.

Additionally, Countrymark contends that Coop Fuels has also knowingly induced and materially contributed to its retail partners’ unauthorized adoption and use of Countrymark’s trademarks.

In this lawsuit, Indiana trademark lawyers for Countrymark list the following allegations of wrongdoing:

• Count I: Infringement of Federally Registered Marks – 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count II: False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count III: Contributory Trademark Infringement
• Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition
• Count V: Deception – Indiana Code § 35-43-5-3(a)(6)
• Count VI: Conversion – Indiana Code § 35-43-4-3

• Count VII: Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act- Indiana Code § 35-24-3-1

Countrymark asks the federal court for injunctive relief, actual and treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

April 27, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Trademark Dispute Between Kimball and Coaster Heads to Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Plaintiff Kimball International, Inc. (“Kimball”) of Jasper, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendant COA, Inc. d/b/a Coaster Company of America (“Coaster”) of Santa Fe Springs, California is accused of infringing Kimball’s Trademark KIMBALL, Reg. No. 1,180,193, which has been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, by using the trademark without authorization.

In addition to direct trademark infringement, Kimball asserts counts of contributory trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act as well as violations of the statutes and common law of the State of Indiana.

In particular, Kimball asserts that some of Coaster’s retail partners have infringed the KIMBALL trademark at Coaster’s behest, including retail giant Sears. As an example of this alleged contributory infringement, Kimball cites Bradley Home Furnishings’ website, which Kimball states features an unauthorized “Kimball Bedroom Collection” that originated from Defendant Coaster:

Kimball indicates in the complaint that it first informed Defendant less than a month before this lawsuit was filed that it believed it held superior rights to the KIMBALL trademark but states that Coaster “continues its unlawful use of the KIMBALL Mark and continues to encourage, induce, and materially contribute to its retail partners’ unlawful use of the KIMBALL Mark.”

In this litigation, filed by an Indiana trademark lawyer for Kimball, the following counts are alleged:

• Count I: Infringement of Federally Registered Marks – 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count II: False Designation of Origin – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count III: Contributory Trademark Infringement
• Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition
• Count V: Deception – Indiana Code § 35-43-5-3(a)(6)
• Count VI: Conversion – Indiana Code § 35-43-4-3

• Count VII: Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act – Indiana Code § 35-24-3-1

Among other remedies, Kimball seeks equitable relief, actual and treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

April 18, 2016

Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation: Former Employee of Sign Company Accused of Unfair Competition

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – An Indiana attorney for Plaintiff Landmark Signs, Inc. of Chesterton, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana.

Plaintiff Landmark states that it has been designing, fabricating, installing, and repairing signs throughout the U.S. for over thirty years. It claims to use at least two trademarks in connection with its business: a “Landmark” trademark, which it claims to have used at least as early as October 1983, and a stylized “Landmark Sign Group” trademark, which it claims to have used at least as early as March 1, 1999.

Landmark states that it holds various trademark rights, including federal trademark Registration No. 2,932,838, which was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as state registrations issued by Indiana and Illinois. Landmark also has a pending federal trademark application for “Landmark Sign Group” that seeks intellectual property protection for the mark in connection with services not listed in its currently registered federal trademark.

Defendants in this federal litigation are I C U Outdoor Advertising LLC (“ICU”) and ICU’s owner Lawrence Yurko, both of Valparaiso, Indiana. Yurko is a former employee of Landmark. He and ICU are accused of various violations of federal and Indiana state law, including trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices and using Yurko’s position at Landmark to advance the interests of ICU.

This lawsuit, filed by an Indiana lawyer for Landmark, lists the following claims:

• Count I: Federal Unfair Competition in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(l)(A)
• Count II: Federal Unfair Competition in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(l)(B)
• Count III: Breach of Fiduciary Duty
• Count IV: Indiana Unfair Competition and Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship
• Count V: Tortious Interference with a Prospective Economic Advantage
• Count VI: Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices
• Count VII: Federal Trademark Infringement

• Count VIII: Indiana and Illinois Trademark Infringement

Landmark seeks equitable relief, damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

April 6, 2016

Indiana Trademark and Copyright Litigation: Coach Sues Indiana Retailer on Allegations of Counterfeiting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Intellectual property attorneys for Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. of New York, New York and Coach Services, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida (collectively, “Coach”) filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana.

Coach contends that Defendants Zip Thru Mart, Charles Estok Sr., and Janice Estok, all of Knox, Indiana, infringed various Coach trademarks, which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition to trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, Coach asserts that Defendants have committed trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and counterfeiting under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, as well as trademark infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment under Indiana common law.

Coach’s allegations stem from Defendants’ purported “designing, manufacturing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale” products that bear counterfeit Coach trademarks. Defendants are further accused of having engaged in this behavior “negligently and/or knowingly and intentionally, with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Coach’s rights, or with bad faith.”

In support of its allegations of infringement and related conduct, Coach states that it sent an investigator to the Zip Thru Mart. Its investigator saw multiple items bearing Coach trademarks, which Coach contends were counterfeit. Additional goods bearing purportedly counterfeit trademarks were seized by a Homeland Security Investigations officer during a subsequent visit to the business.

The intellectual property listed in this litigation includes numerous trademarks for “Coach,” “Coach New York,” “CC,” “Poppy” and similar trademarks. Coach also claims infringement of its copyrights, listing copyright registrations, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, for its “Legacy Stripe” design (registration number VA000704542) “Signature C” design (registration number VA0001228917), “Op Art” design (registration number VA0001694574) and “Horse & Carriage” design (registration number VA0001714051).

In this Indiana lawsuit, filed by trademark and copyright attorneys for Coach, the intellectual property claims are listed as follows:

• Count I: Trademark Counterfeiting, 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count II: Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count III: Trade Dress Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count IV: False Designation of Origin and False Advertising, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count V: Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
• Count VI: Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 501
• Count VII: Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Count VIII: Common Law Unfair Competition

• Count IX: Unjust Enrichment

In addition to statutory damages of $2 million per counterfeit mark, per type of counterfeit good, Coach seeks equitable relief; additional damages, both statutory and punitive; costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Coach has a history of requesting statutory damages that are considerably in excess of what has eventually been awarded by the courts. For example, in Coach, Inc. v. Paula’s Store Sportwear LLC, 2014 WL 347893 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2014), Coach requested $800,000 in statutory damages – $100,000 for each of eight counterfeited marks – from a shop from which four counterfeit Coach wallets and two counterfeit Coach handbags had been seized. When awarding damages to Coach, the court noted that the retail value of the six counterfeit items was less than $1500 and awarded $5000 for each of the eight marks that had been counterfeited, multiplied by the two types of goods, for a total statutory damages award of $80,000.

March 29, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Numerous Defendants Accused of Misusing Certification Marks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Plaintiffs National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc. (“NAFC”) and American Academy of Certified Forensic Counselors, Inc. d/b/a American College of Certified Forensic Counselors (“ACCFC”), both of Fort Wayne, Indiana, commenced litigation in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement.

Plaintiffs offer certifications, for example “Master Addictions Counselor,” to individuals working with criminal offenders in the fields of criminal justice, corrections, addictions and mental health. Defendants in this litigation include individuals as well as organizations offering such services. They are as follows:

NARCONON INTERNATIONAL of California; NARCONON OF GEORGIA, INC. of Georgia; FRIENDS OF NARCONON INTL. of California; PREMAZON, INC. of California; NARCONON SPRING HILL, INC., d/b/a SUNCOAST REHABILITATION CENTER of Florida; BEST DRUG REHABILITATION, INC. of Nevada; A LIFE WORTH LIVING, INC. d/b/a NARCONON COLORADO – A LIFE WORTH SAVING of Colorado; NARCONON FRESH START, INC. of California; NARCONON SOUTH TEXAS, INC. of Texas; NARCONON EASTERN UNITED STATES, INC. of Virginia; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL of California; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER of California; NARCONON FREEDOM CENTER, INC. of Michigan; GOLDEN MILLENNIUM PRODUCTIONS of California; INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF SPECIALISTS of California; GREATCIRCLE STUDIOS of Florida; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL of California; ROYALMARK MANAGEMENT of California; ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ of California; ROBERT “BOBBY” WIGGINS of California; JONATHAN BEAZLEY of California; JOSEPH GUERNACCINI of California; PHILIP R. KELLY II of California; THOMAS GARCIA of Florida; CLARK CARR of California; MICHAEL DAPALMA of California; DAVID MISCAVIGE of California; NICHOLAS THIEL of Michigan; DAVID S. LEE of Indiana; RICHARD “MATTHEW” HAWK of Louisiana; MARY RIESER of Georgia; ANTHONY BYLSMA of California; KENNETH POMERANCE of Florida; JAMES “JIM” WOODWORTH of Louisiana; CARL SMITH of California; JONATHAN MROETTI of California; GLEN PETCAVAGE of Colorado; DAPHNA HERNANDEZ of California; LURIA K. DION a/k/a KATHY DION of California; and NARCONON OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA d/b/a NARCONON VISTA BAY d/b/a NARCONON REDWOOD CLIFFS of California.

As part of its certification program, Plaintiffs utilize a federally registered trademark, which is included in Plaintiffs’ logo:

NAFC and ACCFC allege that Defendants have infringed its trademark, which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as Federal Trademark Registration No. 3,585,933. Defendants are also accused of misusing Plaintiffs’ certifications and logos.

The following violations of law have been alleged by Plaintiffs:

• Federal Trademark Infringement
• Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Federal Infringement Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125

• Civil Conspiracy

Plaintiffs seek various forms of redress including preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney’s fees.

March 28, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Great American Bagel Sues Over Sign Modified to Read “Great American Eagle”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – An Indiana trademark lawyer for Plaintiff The Great American Bagel Enterprises, Inc. (“GAB”) of Westmont, Illinois filed a trademark infringement complaint in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendants United HBA Corporation and Harbhajan Singh, d/b/a The Great American Eagle, both of Evansville, Indiana.

GAB owns, operates and franchises food-products stores known as The Great American Bagel. It owns a trademark for “The Great American Bagel,” Trademark Registration No. 2,015,665, which is comprised of the phrase “The Great American Bagel” with stars and bands. The mark has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Defendant United HBA operates a gas station and convenience store, which offers retail food products. Defendant Singh is listed as the President and sole principal of United HBA. GAB contends that United HBA is displaying a sign that had previously been used as signage for a The Great American Bagel store. GAB states that Defendants modified “Bagel” to read “Eagle” by removing the “B” and adding an “E” but that the sign is otherwise unaltered.

GAB alleges infringement of its trademark, stating that Defendants’ use of the modified sign has caused customers to confuse the food products offered by GAB with those offered by Defendants. In this federal lawsuit, filed by an Indiana trademark attorney, the following claims are made:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count II: False Designation of Origin, False Advertising and Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act Section 43(A)
• Count III: Unfair Competition – Trade Name Infringement
• Count IV: Unfair Competition – Passing Off

• Count V: Unjust Enrichment

GAB seeks equitable relief, damages, including punitive damages; costs and attorney’s fees.

March 24, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Donut Sellers Square Off Over Use of Term “Square Donuts”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Trademark lawyers for Plaintiff Family Express Corporation of Valparaiso, Indiana filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and trademark cancellation in the Northern District of Indiana.

The Defendant in this litigation is Square Donuts Inc., which has stores in Terre Haute, Indianapolis, Bloomington and Richmond, Indiana. Defendant owns two registered federal trademarks: SQUARE DONUTS, Trademark Reg. No.4341135 for “café services,” and “SQUARE DONUTS” & Design, Trademark Reg. No. 4341136 for “retail bakery shops.” It also holds an Indiana State trademark for the mark “Square Donuts, Inc.” Both Plaintiff and Defendant sell donuts.

The dispute arose in 2006, when a trademark attorney for Defendant Square Donuts sent a letter to Plaintiff Family Express accusing it of “making square donuts and marketing the same under the name ‘Square Donuts,'” which it asserted was a violation of Defendant’s trademark rights. Legal counsel for Family Express responded that there was no trademark infringement, as “square donuts” was merely descriptive and, thus, could not be registered as a trademark without a showing of acquired distinctiveness. Family Express’ trademark lawyer also noted that the trademark in question was not registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office but rather with the State of Indiana.

Ten years later, the dispute remains unresolved. Square Donuts, Inc. has acquired two federal trademarks and continues to express its concerns about Plaintiff’s use of “square donuts” in the marketing its donut products. Plaintiff proposed a co-existence agreement but the notion of such an agreement was rejected.

In January 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to register Family Express’s “SQUARE DONUTS” mark, Application No. 86779997, in Class 030 for “donuts” and in Class 035 for “retail convenience stores” on the grounds of likely confusion with Defendant’s preexisting trademark registrations for “SQUARE DONUTS.”

In this litigation, Plaintiff Family Express seeks the following from the court:

• Count I: Declaration of Non-Infringement

• Count II: Cancellation