Trademark Infringement

July 24, 2015

Seventh Circuit Trademark Law: WD-40 Did Not Infringe “Inhibitor” Trademark

Chicago, Illinois – The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the

ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division in the matter of Sorenson v. WD-40 Company, holding that WD-40’s use of “inhibitor” and a crosshair graphic on its product labels did not constitute trademark infringement.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Sorensen founded and is the CEO of a company that produces a line of rust-inhibiting products, which were first sold in 1997. These products contain a substance called volatile corrosion inhibitor (“VCI”). Sorenson owns a federally registered trademark – THE INHIBITOR – for this line of products. He also claims common-law trademark rights to an orange-and-black crosshair design mark that is associated with these products.

July 20, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Trademark Infringement Litigation to Proceed in Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana state court complaint filed by Indiana trademark attorneys for 7E Fit Spa Licensing Group LLC, 7E Holdings 1 LLC, and 7E LLC was removed to the Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of Indiana upon the request of trademark lawyers for Defendants 7EFS of Highlands Ranch, LLC, Spectrum Medspa, Gordon Smith and Jane Smith.

Plaintiffs contend that they entered into various agreements with Defendants, including licensing and operating agreements, and that Defendants breached portions of one or more of the agreements in the operation of Defendants’ Littleton, Colorado business establishment.

Defendants are accused of violating the Lanham Act – 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and 15 U.S.C. § l 125(c) – as well as common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duties and conversion.

June 29, 2015

Seventh Circuit Trademark Law: District Court Has Discretion Regarding Award of Attorneys’ Fees Under Lanham Act

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, Illinois – The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act by the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff William Burford and Defendant Accounting Practice Sales, Inc. (“APS”) were parties to a contract under which Burford had agreed to market and facilitate the purchase and sale of accounting practices on behalf of APS. APS terminated the contract. Shortly thereafter, Burford started a competing business. For this business, Burford chose the name “American Accounting Practice Sales.” Burford also sued APS and Gary Holmes, the owner of APS, for breach of contract.

In response to Burford’s contract-claims lawsuit, APS filed a four-count counterclaim. Included in those counterclaims was an allegation that Burford had misappropriated APS’s trade name in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. by using the business name “American Accounting Practice Sales.”

The district court held for APS on the contract claim, reasoning that the contract between the parties was of indefinite duration and was therefore terminable at will. After this ruling in favor of APS, but before the district court could consider the counterclaim, APS voluntarily dismissed its counterclaim under the Lanham Act with prejudice.

Burford then contended that, as the prevailing party on the Lanham Act claim, he was entitled to attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), asserting that APS’s pursuit of the Lanham Act claim was meritless and amounted to an abuse of process. The district court refused to grant attorneys’ fees on the theory that APS’s claim under the Lanham Act claim could have been pursued by a rational party seeking to protect its trademark.

Burford appealed. As part of his appeal, he asked the Seventh Circuit to reverse the district court’s denial of his request for attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act. Circuit Judges William J. Bauer and David F. Hamilton, and District Court Judge Sara L. Ellis, sitting by designation, heard the matter.

The Seventh Circuit first held that the district court had erred in holding that the contract had not been breached. While indefinite-term contracts are by default terminable at will, it noted that the parties had contracted around that general rule by providing that APS could terminate the contract only if Burford violated the terms of the contract. On this issue, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court.

On the question of attorneys’ fees, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(3), district courts have the discretion to award attorneys’ fees to those prevailing under the Act in “exceptional cases.” Such an “exceptional case” within the meaning of the Lanham Act can be found in those cases where the district court determines that the decision to bring the claim could be called an abuse of process.

In turn, such an abuse of process can be discerned in cases where, for example, “a rational litigant would pursue [the claim] only because it would impose disproportionate costs on his opponent” or where there was evidence that the party advancing the Lanham Act claim had done so “to obtain an advantage unrelated to obtaining a favorable judgment.”

The Seventh Circuit noted that Burford had failed to persuade the district court that the pursuit of the claim was objectively unreasonable or was intended to harass or to obtain an advantage unrelated to winning a favorable judgment. Consequently, because decision whether to award attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act is left to the district court’s sound discretion, the lower court’s refusal to grant such fees was affirmed.

June 23, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Weekends Only, Inc. Sues Weekends Only Clearance Outlet

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana trademark lawyer for Weekends Only, Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that AK Distribution LLC and KASH Subsidiaries, Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana, one or both of which does business as “Weekends Only Furniture & Mattress Clearance Outlet,” infringed the trademarks WEEKENDS ONLY and WEEKENDS ONLY FURNITURE OUTLET, U.S. Registration Numbers 2,669,149; 2,697,959; 2,834,336; and 2,891,146, which have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office.

Plaintiff Weekends Only, Inc. operates business establishments in Indiana and Missouri. It contends that it owns and has used various trademarks, currently registered by the U.S. Trademark Office, that include the words “Weekends Only” since approximately 1997. These trademarks have been registered in Class 35 for “Retail store services featuring furniture.”

In this federal lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants AK Distribution LLC and KASH Subsidiaries, Inc. have used and continue to use confusingly similar versions of the WEEKENDS ONLY and WEEKENDS ONLY FURNITURE OUTLET trademarks. In so doing, states Plaintiff, Defendants have committed trademark infringement under federal and state law, unfair competition under the state law of Indiana, false designation of origin, injury to business reputation and/or trademarks, common law unfair competition.

In the complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark attorney for Plaintiff, the following claims are alleged:

• Count I: Infringement of Federally-Registered Trademark
• Count II: Infringement of Common Law Rights in Trademarks
• Count III: Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of Indiana Code § 24-5-0.5-1 et seq.
• Count IV: False Designation of Origin Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count V: Common Law Unfair Competition
• Count VI: Motion for Permanent Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff asks the court for injunctive relief and damages.

June 18, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Imprimis Sues Hook’s Apothecary for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Trademark lawyers for Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of California filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Hook’s Apothecary, Inc. of Indiana, as well as unidentified Doe Defendants 1 through 20, infringed the following Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. trademarks: GO DROPLESS! (U.S. Serial No. 96143543), GO DROPLESS! – Logo (U.S. Serial No. 86143553), LESSDROPS (U.S. Serial No. 86497791), DROPLESS CATARACT THERAPY (U.S. Serial No. 86497090 ), and DROPLESS THERAPY (U.S. Serial No. 86497100), which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Imprimis offers slow-releasing ophthalmic compositions containing triamcinolone acetate, moxifloxacin hydrochloride, triamcinolone acetate, and vancomycin. It offers these products for use in the treatment of acute infections of the eye and for use via intraocular injection. These products are sold under the trademarks at issue in this Indiana lawsuit. The products are also claimed to be the subject of patent applications numbers 14/361,242 and 14/227,819, which have been filed with the USPTO.

Hook’s has been accused of infringing all, or some subset, of these intellectual property rights. Imprimis claims that Hook’s has been manufacturing, marketing, and selling “copycat” “Dropless” formulations, the administration of which has been reported to have caused a high incidence of endophthalmitis and other related problems in patients recovering from cataract surgery. This, Imprimis contends, has created confusion, harmed the reputation of Imprimis’ inventions, and caused some physicians to cease ordering from Imprimis.

In this complaint, filed by trademark attorneys for Imprimis in Indiana federal court, the following counts are alleged:

• Infringement of Trademarks (Against All Defendants)
• Common Law Unfair Competition (Against All Defendants)
• Common Law Trademark and Trade Name Infringement (Against All Defendants)
• For Declaratory Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Against All Defendants)
• For Injunctive Relief (Against All Defendants)

Imprimis asks for general and special damages, as well as a trebling of those amounts “because of the willful nature of said infringements”; for a judgment that Hook’s has violated §§ 1114 and 1125(a) of the Lanham Act; for a judgment that Hook’s has engaged in unfair competition under the common law; for injunctive relief; and for an award of the costs of litigation, including attorneys’ fees.

June 11, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Eco Elettrocomponenti Alleges Sale of Counterfeit Lights by National Supply

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – An Indiana trademark lawyer for Eco Elettrocomponenti SRL of Reggio Emilia, Italy (“Eco”) filed a trademark-infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that National Supply of Green Bay, Wisconsin sold counterfeit Eco products.

Plaintiff Eco is a manufacturer and supplier of components for lighting attractions. Among its products are cabochon lenses commonly referred to as “Star Lights.” Eco claims that its Star Light cabochon lenses have a distinct physical appearance and configuration. Eco indicates that it owns a trademark, Registration Number 4,401,967, for this distinct configuration.

Defendant National Supply sells specialty lighting and electrical products, including cabochon lenses. National Supply has been accused of having purchased counterfeit Star Lights for resale to consumers. In January 2015, a U.S.-based distributor of Eco’s Star Light contacted National Supply to discuss National Supply’s Internet sales of lenses advertised as Star Light lenses. Eco indicates that, in response to this discussion, National Supply voluntarily agreed not to sell Star Lights.

Eco contends that the sale of such lights by National Supply is nonetheless ongoing, stating that “National Supply offers for sale counterfeit ECO products.” Eco, via its Indiana trademark attorney, has sued National Supply, asserting that National Supply intentionally, knowingly, and willfully purchased and redistributed counterfeit Eco products. This trademark lawsuit asks the Indiana court for actual and/or statutory damages; a finding that this is an exceptional case meriting an award of costs, including attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages; and for injunctive relief.

June 5, 2015

Indiana Trademark and Patent Litigation: Simpson Sues Two Indiana Individuals Alleging Patent Infringement and Counterfeiting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Trademark and patent attorneys for Simpson Performance Products, Inc. of Mooresville, North Carolina (“Simpson”) and SFI Foundation, Inc. of Poway, California (“SFI”) commenced trademark litigation in the Western District of North Carolina alleging that Robert Wagoner of North Judson, Indiana and Derek Randall Cathcart of Valparaiso, Indiana infringed the SIMPSON® family of trademarks, some of which have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office. The case was transferred to the Northern District of Indiana. Among the trademarks at issue are U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4,117,821; 1,243,427; 3,026,333; 3,026,334; and 3,050,920. Also at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,931,669 and 8,272,074.

Plaintiff Simpson is a manufacturer of automotive and motorsports specialty/performance products, including head and neck restraints for competitive racing. The Simpson brand of automotive and motorsports products has existed 1959. Plaintiff SFI was established to develop and administer minimum performance standards for the automotive aftermarket and motorsports industries, including standards for specialty/performance racing equipment.

Simpson offers for sale the SIMPSON® Hybrid PRO Rage™ head and neck restraint. Simpson indicates that this product is one of the few such devices to be certified under a special classification, SFI SPEC 38.1, for use in NASCAR competitions.

Defendants Wagoner and Carthcart have been accused of engaging in the business of providing specialty/performance racing equipment, including head and neck restraints that are counterfeit versions of Simpson products. Plaintiffs contend that Wagoner is offering counterfeit head and neck restraints through ebay.com. Plaintiffs allege that Cathcart offers counterfeit head and neck restraints via the website racingjunk.com.

These restraints, Plaintiffs contend, bear trademarks owned by Simpson, including the SIMPSON® federally registered trademark as well as the HUTCHENS Hybrid PRO™ and Hybrid PRO™ common law trademarks.

The accused products also allegedly bear a label that falsely states, “This product designed & manufactured by Safety Solutions, Inc. PATENT NO.: 6931669; other patents pending.” According to Plaintiffs, the alleged counterfeiting activities of Defendants also constitute patent infringement.

In this lawsuit, filed by patent and trademark lawyers for Plaintiffs, the following causes of action are listed:

• Trademark Infringement
• Unfair Competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); False Designation of Origin; False or Misleading Advertising
• Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices under N.C. [North Carolina] Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1
• Patent Infringment [sic]

• Common Law Fraud

Plaintiffs ask for a finding in their favor on each of the counts alleged, including a finding that the conduct was knowing and willful, and entry against each Defendant jointly and severally. Plaintiffs seek costs, attorneys’ fees and damages, including enhanced damages, as well as injunctive relief.

This federal trademark complaint was initially filed in the Western District of North Carolina in February 2015. In May 2015, District Judge Richard Voorhees ordered it to be transferred to the Northern District of Indiana, finding that the North Carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

May 22, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Hard Rock Hotel Sues Alleging Infringement of Trademarked “Rehab” Pool Party

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana trademark attorneys for HRHH Hotel/Casino, LLC and HRHH IP, LLC, both of Las Vegas, Nevada (collectively, “HRHH”), commenced a trademark lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Bella Vita, LLC, Henri B. Najem, Jr. and 10 unknown defendants, all of Indiana, infringed various trademarks belonging to HRHH.

The HRHH entities together claim ownership to the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Las Vegas located in Las Vegas, Nevada, along with certain intellectual property rights used in connection with that establishment.

HRHH contends that it created a daytime pool party held at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Las Vegas known as the “Rehab Pool Party” or simply “Rehab”. The Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Las Vegas indicates that the Rehab Pool Party was first held in 2004 and that the Rehab Pool Party is still being held regularly. HRHH asserts that its Rehab Pool Party has become famous and that it has licensed the REHAB marks to third parties for clothing and other merchandise.

Bella Vita, an Indianapolis provider of restaurant, bar and related entertainment services, has been accused of organizing and hosting weekly pool parties that are confusingly marketed as “Rehab+ Sundays”.

This federal lawsuit has brought under trademark and anti-dilution laws of the United States, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., the trademark laws of the State of Indiana, Ind. Code § 24-2-1, and under the statutory and common law of unfair competition. The trademarks at issue, all of which have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office, are as follows:

• Trademark Registration No. 3,873,673 REHAB
• Trademark Registration No. 4,524,097 REHAB
• Trademark Registration No. 4,611,979 REHAB RX
• Trademark Registration No. 3,182,848 Rxehab
• Trademark Registration No. 4,615,774 Rxehab

• Trademark Registration No. 3,170,859 Rxehab

In the complaint against Bella Vita, its managing member Najem and the unnamed Does, Indiana trademark lawyers for Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action:

• False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition – 15 U.S.C § 1125(a)
• Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114, Ind. Code § 24-2-1-13, and Common Law
• Dilution – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)

• Unfair Competition

Plaintiffs ask the court for a finding that Defendants have engaged in trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition; for injunctive relief; for a finding that HRHH is the exclusive owner of the REHAB Marks and that such marks are valid and protectable; for an award of damages and profits earned as a result of infringing activity; for punitive damages; and for an award of interest, costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

May 20, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Integrity Trade Services Sues Ex-Employees Alleging Conspiracy and Conversion

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Integrity Trade Services, Inc. (“ITS”) of Frankfort, Illinois filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana naming as Defendants Integrity Employment Partners, LLC, Integrity Trade Services, LLC, Janice Hernandez, James Hernandez, Michaela Williams, and Jason Reis, all of Indiana, and alleging multiple claims, including trademark infringement, conversion of ITS trade secrets, breach of contract, and tortious interference with business relationships.

ITS is a national staffing services company, doing businesses in multiple states, including Indiana, Florida, Illinois, and Texas. ITS is wholly owned by John E. Cumbee, III. In 2008, ITS acquired all of the operational assets of the Knox, Indiana branch of a staffing company owned by CES America, Inc. ITS also hired most, if not all, of the CES employees then working at the Knox facility, including defendants James and Janice Hernandez.

ITS contends that, since purchasing the Knox facility, it has invested well over $1 million to build the Knox business and the ITS brand as it is related to that facility. It asserts in this federal lawsuit, inter alia, that Defendants conspired to convert ITS’ customers, employees and trade secrets for their own use.

The accused in this case are husband and wife Janice Hernandez and James Hernandez; several family members of Janice Hernandez, including Michaela Williams, and Jason Reis; and two entities apparently owned by the Hernandezes, Integrity Employment Partners, LLC, Integrity Trade Services, LLC.

Defendant James Hernandez (“James”) worked for ITS from the time that ITS acquired the business until April 30, 2015 when he was fired. ITS asserts that James engaged in a conspiracy to solicit away and convert (a) ITS’ office employees at the Knox location, (b) at least the active ITS field employees servicing the Knox location, and (c) customers comprising the Knox-area business. He is accused of attempting to transfer them to Integrity Employment Partners, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company formed to process the Knox business converted from ITS for his benefit and the benefit of the other co-conspirators.

Defendant Janice Hernandez (“Janice”), also became employed by ITS when ITS was acquired from its prior owner. She has been accused of not only being an integral part of the alleged conspiracy but also of being “likely its “‘mastermind.'” Defendant Michaela Williams is Janice’s daughter. Defendant Jason Reis is the ex-son-in-law of James and Janice, having been married to another of Janice’s daughters.

ITS states that, in the last two weeks in April 2015, it discovered various anomalies in the Knox business. These anomalies alerted ITS to the activities that triggered this federal lawsuit. They included a drop off in weekly gross sales, the formation of Integrity Employment Partners, LLC (“IEP”), and checks issued by existing ITS customers made payable to IEP (and not ITS).

Defendants are accused of orchestrating a scheme to confuse ITS’ customers and employees regarding with which staffing businesses using the name “Integrity” – Plaintiff’s firm or Defendants’ firms – those customers and employees were transacting business. In doing so, ITS contends, Defendants attempted with some success to convert ITS’ business assets and relationships for Defendants’ benefit. Allegations of criminal conduct by Defendants were also made. In a 48-page complaint, filed by trademark lawyers for Plaintiff, those claims and others are made:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count II: Federal Unfair Competition
• Count III: Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act
• Count IV: Breach of Fiduciary Duty
• Count V: Breach of Agreement
• Count VI: Tortious Interference with Contract
• Count VII: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships
• Count VIII: Conversion
• Count IX: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
• Count X: Uniform Trade Secrets Act
• Count XI: Civil Conspiracy
• Count XII: Unjust Enrichment

• Count XIII: Breach of Contract

Plaintiff asks the court for, inter alia, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.

April 30, 2015

Supreme Court Holds TTAB Decision Can Have Issue Preclusion Effect

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The Supreme Court on March 24, 2015, held that a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision should be given issue preclusion effect when the usages it adjudicated are materially the same as those before a district court. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., U.S., No. 13-352, 3/24/2015.

Reversing an Eighth Circuit decision, the Court found no categorical reason why issue preclusion can never apply. The same likelihood of confusion standard applies for both registration and infringement, Justice Alito explained, even if the TTAB and the district court do not always consider the same usages. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Ginsburg, who stressed that preclusion will not apply for a great many TTAB decisions. Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Scalia) dissented, objecting to the presumption of preclusion for adjudicating agencies. The Court’s decision is consistent with the position taken in an AIPLA amicus brief filed in this case.

Background