How should I protect my intellectual property?
Different types of intellectual property are protected by different means.
In the United States, patents may be available to any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Patent protection must be sought by application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). There are three types of patents:
Washington, D.C. – The United States Supreme Court held that in those cases in which summary disposition by the court is inappropriate, and where a jury has been empaneled, trademark tacking for purpose of determining priority is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
Hana Financial, Inc. and Hana Bank both provide financial services to individuals in the United States. Hana Bank was established in 1971 under the name Korea Investment Financial Corporation. It adopted the name “Hana Bank” for use in Korea in 1991. It began advertising in the United States as “Hana Overseas Korean Club” in 1994. This name was changed to “Hana World Center” in 2000. In 2002, it began banking under the name “Hana Bank” in the United States.
Hana Financial began using its name in 1995 in the United States. In 2007, it sued Hana Bank for trademark infringement. Hana Bank defended against this claim by invoking the tacking doctrine, under which a trademark user may make limited modifications to its trademark while retaining the priority provided by the initial trademark. The jury held for Hana Bank. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that tacking was a “highly fact-sensitive inquiry” that was properly the province of the jury.
Hana Financial appealed the issue of trademark tacking to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Court noted that lower courts have held that two marks may be tacked when they are considered to be “legal equivalents,” i.e., they “create the same, continuing commercial impression.” That “commercial impression,” in turn, “must be viewed through the eyes of a consumer.” Such an evaluation – designed to capture the impression which a trademark makes upon an ordinary consumer – “falls comfortably within the ken of a jury.”
The Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that “when a jury is to be empaneled and when the facts warrant neither summary judgment nor judgment as a matter of law, tacking is a question for the jury.”
Indianapolis, Indiana – Judge Tanya Walton Pratt (pictured) of the Southern District of Indiana struck a response brief in the matter of Wine & Canvas Development, LLC. v. Theodore Weisser, Christopher Muylle, YN Canvas CA, LLC and Art Uncorked, noting that the brief was both late and longer than permitted.
In 2011, Wine & Canvas Development, LLC (“Wine & Canvas”) sued Muylle and others alleging the wrongful use of Wine and Canvas trademarks as well as the breach of non-competition agreements. Muylle counterclaimed against Wine and Canvas asserting abuse of process. In November 2014, after a four-day trial, the jury found for Muylle on all claims and awarded him $270,000.
After the conclusion of the trial, the Indiana trademark lawyer for Muylle petitioned the court for attorneys’ fees under § 1117(a) of the Lanham act, which provides that the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases.” Muylle, via his trademark attorney, contended that this case was properly deemed exceptional as a result of the jury’s finding of abuse of process by Wine & Canvas. Muylle also noted that “the Court previously determined that ‘Wine & Canvas, Mr. Scott, [Ms. McCracken], and Mr. McCracken have flooded the Court with filings which has increased the work expended on the case and Wine & Canvas has filed numerous claims that the Court has found to be without merit.’ … And the Court has already sanctioned the Plaintiff not once but three times for failing to comply with discovery or court rules.” Muylle asked for $175,882.68 in attorneys’ fees.
Wine & Canvas asked for an extension of time to respond to this request, to January 15, 2015, which the court granted. Wine & Canvas subsequently requested an additional extension of time to file its response, specifically asking for a new deadline of January 19, 2015. The court granted this request, also.
Wine & Canvas filed its response brief on January 20, 2015. Muylle’s trademark attorney asked the court to strike that brief. The court noted that “[Wine & Canvas’] counsel’s repeated disregard for and supposed ignorance of the rules is no excuse, and an apology does not allow counsel to continue to disregard the rules and court orders” and admonished the trademark lawyer for Wine & Canvas for failing to meet his filing deadlines.
The court also noted that, in addition to the untimeliness of the filing, the 40-page brief was also overlong in violation of Local Rule 7-1(e)(1), which limits the length of response briefs to 35 pages.
Consequently, the court granted the motion to strike Wine & Canvas’ response brief. The court, however, also granted Wine & Canvas leave to file a belated response to Muylle’s petition for attorneys’ fees.
South Bend, Indiana – Indiana trademark attorneys for Agdia Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Jun Q. Xia and AC Diagnostics, Inc. of Fayetteville, Arkansas infringed the trademark AGDIA®, which has been registered as United States Trademark Registration No. 1747994.
For over 30 years, Plaintiff Agdia has been in the business of supplying testing, test kits, and associated products and services related to the presence of pathogens or quality factors in agricultural products. Agdia has sued a former employee, Jun Q. Xia, alleging violations of federal and Indiana intellectual property law. AC Diagnostics, a competing enterprise formed by Xia, has also been named as a defendant in this lawsuit.
Agdia contends that Defendants have been unlawfully using its trademarked name. Among the claims is that Xia has hidden the Agdia trademark followed by the phrase “plant diagnostics,” in the meta tags of nearly every product page associated with the AC Diagnostics website. Agdia asserts that, as an example, the “Company Profiles” section of the AC Diagnostics website, available at http://www.acdiainc.com/Comprofil.htm, appears upon first glance to provide nothing more than company information. However, if the page is printed, Agdia states that it reveals more text at the bottom of the document, hidden as white text on a white background.
Agdia also asserts that, through the AC Diagnostics website, Xia is deceptively and unfairly trading on Agdia’s name by hiding that name, followed by the phrase “plant diagnostics,” in the meta tags of nearly every product page associated with that site. Agdia contends that no fewer than 200 separate URLs from the Defendants’ website use the Agdia name deceptively.
Agdia finally cites the name of AC Diagnostic’s webpage as deceptive, claiming that “acdiainc,” which is used within www.acdiainc.com, AC Diagnostic’s website, is just one letter off from Agdia’s legal name, “Agdia Inc.” Defendants are accused of using this web address with the bad faith intent to profit from the Agdia trademark.
In a five-count complaint, filed by Indiana trademark lawyers for Agdia, Defendants are accused of willful, intentional, and unauthorized use of the Agdia trademark that is unlawful under federal law as well as Indiana state law.
Plaintiff Agdia asks the court to enjoin Defendants from using the Agdia mark; to cancel the domain www.acdiainc.com or transfer it to Agdia; for damages, including treble damages; and for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Hammond, Indiana – Chanel’s Salon, LLC, d/b/a Chanel’s Salon and Chanel’s Cosmetology Salon, and Chanel Jones, all of Merrillville, Indiana, entered into a consent judgment with Chanel, Inc. of New York, New York to resolve ongoing trademark disputes regarding the trademarked term CHANEL®.
Indiana trademark attorneys for fashion-and-beauty giant Chanel, Inc. had sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Chanel’s Salon, LLC and Chanel Jones had infringed and were infringing the trademark CHANEL, Registration Nos. 302,690; 510,992; 1,263,845; 1,348,842; 1,464,711; 1,559,404; 1,660,866; 3,134,695; and 4,105,557, which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
In this Indiana lawsuit, Chanel, Inc. alleged trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition under federal law as well as trademark infringement and unfair competition under Indiana state law. Chanel, Inc. claimed that its intellectual property rights to its trademark CHANEL had been infringed and diluted by actions of Defendants Chanel’s Salon, an Indiana beauty salon, and its owner Chanel Jones.
Specifically, Defendants were accused of using the trade names CHANEL’S SALON and/or CHANEL’S COSMETOLOGY SALON in connection with their beauty salon without Chanel’s authorization. Chanel, Inc. also claimed that the Defendants were infringing and diluting the CHANEL trademark by, inter alia, offering goods and services that are related to those offered under the CHANEL mark, including cosmetics, beauty consultation services and hair accessories.
This litigation ended pursuant to a consent judgment crafted by the parties and entered by the Indiana district court. As part of the consent judgment, the court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Jones from using CHANEL to identify her beauty salon or any other enterprises, services or products. Jones was also enjoined from any use of the term CHANEL as part of any keyword, meta tag, page tag, or source code in any business marketing.
The order in this intellectual property litigation was issued by Judge Theresa L. Springmann in the Northern District of Indiana. This case is: Chanel, Inc. v. Chanel’s Salon LLC et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00304-TLS-PRC.
Phoenix, Arizona – Federal officials teamed with the National Football League (NFL) Thursday to announce the results of a nationwide law enforcement effort aimed at combatting counterfeit sports merchandise.
Speaking at a NFL news conference, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Sarah R. Saldaña, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Director of Field Operations William K. Brooks, and NFL Counsel Dolores F. DiBella discussed the results of the initiative, dubbed “Operation Team Player.”
This year’s operation began immediately following the conclusion of Super Bowl XLVIII and targeted international shipments of counterfeit merchandise as it entered the United States. Authorities identified warehouses, stores, flea markets, online vendors and street vendors selling counterfeit game-related sportswear and tickets throughout the country.
Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana copyright and trademark attorney for Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) of Redmond, Washington sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Ace Recycling, Inc. and Kevin Cawood, both of Fort Wayne, Indiana (collectively, “Defendants”), infringed copyrighted material belonging to Microsoft. Defendants have also been accused of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false description and representation, counterfeiting and unfair competition. Microsoft seeks damages, an accounting, the imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendants’ illegal profits, and injunctive relief.
Microsoft develops, markets, distributes and licenses computer software. Ace Recycling is engaged in the business of advertising, marketing, installing, offering, and distributing computer hardware and software, including the software at issue, which Microsoft contends is unauthorized.
Microsoft’s software products, which have been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office, include Microsoft Windows XP and Microsoft Vista, both of which are operating systems for desktop and computers.
Also at issue are the following trademarks and service marks belonging to Microsoft:
• “MICROSOFT,” Trademark and Service Mark Registration No. 1,200,236, for computer programs and computer programming services;
• “MICROSOFT,” Trademark Registration No. 1,256,083, for computer hardware and software manuals, newsletters, and computer documentation;
• WINDOWS, Trademark Registration No. 1,872,264 for computer programs and manuals sold as a unit; and
• COLORED FLAG DESIGN, Trademark Registration No. 2,744,843, for computer software.
Microsoft contends that Defendants advertised, marketed, installed, offered and distributed unauthorized copies of Microsoft software, despite Microsoft’s claims that their actions infringed Microsoft’s intellectual property rights. Specifically, Microsoft asserts that, in April 2013, Defendants distributed to an investigator refurbished computer systems with unauthorized copies of Windows XP installed on them. In response, in June 2013, Microsoft asked Defendants to cease and desist from making and distributing infringing copies of Microsoft software. Microsoft alleges that, in May 2014, Defendants again distributed to an investigator a refurbished computer system with an unauthorized copy of a Windows operating system – in that case, Windows Vista – on it.
Microsoft contends that these are not isolated incidents but, instead, indicate Defendants’ pattern of acting in reckless disregard of Microsoft’s registered copyrights, trademarks and service marks.
In this Indiana lawsuit, Microsoft’s copyright and trademark attorney makes the following claims:
• Copyright Infringement – 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq.
• Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• False Designation Of Origin, False Description And Representation – 15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq.
• Indiana Common Law Unfair Competition
• For Imposition Of A Constructive Trust Upon Illegal Profits
• Accounting
Microsoft asks for a judgment of copyright infringement; of trademark and service mark infringement; that Defendants have committed and are committing acts of false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, and false or misleading representation against Microsoft, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); that Defendants have engaged in unfair competition in violation of Indiana common law; and that Defendants have otherwise injured the business reputation and business of Microsoft.
Microsoft also asks for the impoundment of all counterfeit and infringing copies of purported Microsoft products; the imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendants’ illegal profits; injunctive relief; damages, including enhanced damages; and costs and attorneys’ fees.
The case was assigned to Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins in the Northern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00032-JVB-SLC.
How does a trademark infringement lawsuit begin?
A trademark lawsuit begins when the trademark owner files a complaint with a court alleging trademark infringement. Among other things, the complaint names the parties involved and sets forth the allegations that form the basis of the lawsuit. Trademark owners who decide to sue may file their complaint in either state court or federal court, depending on the circumstances. However, in most cases, the trademark owner, as plaintiff, will choose federal court. Even when a plaintiff chooses state court, it may be possible for the defendant to have the case “removed” to federal court.
Frequently, either before or at the time a complaint is filed, the trademark owner or the owner’s trademark attorney may send you a letter or otherwise contact you to make claims about the owner’s trademark rights and demand that you take certain actions, such as ceasing use of your mark.
Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Bettie Page, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana (“BPL”) sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Vibes Base Enterprises, Inc. of El Monte, California (“Vibes Base”) committed unfair competition under federal, California and Indiana common law. BPL has asked the court for the cancellation of a federal trademark registration belonging to Vibes Base.
BLP claims that it is the exclusive owner of the name, likeness, voice, right of publicity and endorsement, worldwide trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property related to the late model Bettie Page. Among its intellectual property holdings are trademark registrations for BETTIE PAGE, trademark numbers 2,868,613 and 2,868,614 which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Vibes Base develops, manufactures and markets lines of apparel products and accessories under various brand names, including “Bette Paige.” In May 1999, Sand K. Inc. obtained federal trademark registration number 2,244,182 for the mark BETTE PAIGE for women’s clothing. Sand assigned that mark to Vibes Base in 2011.
In March 2014, BPL filed a federal trademark application for the BETTIE PAGE trademark for “computerized on-line retail store services in the field of clothing…” and similar uses. The USPTO refused registration of this trademark on the grounds that a likelihood of confusion existed between BETTIE PAGE, for which Plaintiff had applied, and the trademark BETTE PAIGE, which had previously been registered.
Plaintiff contends that the registration and/or use of the BETTE PAIGE trademark is an illegal use of the Page intellectual property, including the right of publicity.
In this complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark lawyer, the following counts are asserted:
• Count I: Unfair Competition Under 15 U.S.C. §1125(A)
• Count II: Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.
• Count III: Common Law Unfair Competition
• Count IV: Unjust Enrichment
• Count V: Right of Publicity Infringement Under Cal. Civ. Code §3344.1
• Count VI: Request for Declaratory Judgment of No Trademark Infringement
• Count VII: Declaration that Defendant’s Registration is Invalid (Non Compliance with 15 U.S.C. §1052(c))
• Count VIII: Declaration that Defendant’s Registration is Invalid (False Designation of Origin, Sponsorship or Endorsement)
BPL asks the court to cancel Vibes Base’s BETTE PAIGE trademark; for an award of actual damages; for treble damages for willful and/or intentional use of an unauthorized trademark; for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses; to order Vibes Base to destroy or surrender to BPL all unauthorized products, including all products that Vibes Base is able to recall; and, in the alternative, to declare that BPL’s trademark, as contained in its trademark application, is not confusingly similar to the BETTE PAIGE trademark.
Hammond, Indiana – James Cross acting pro se, and Zip-A-Tee Inc. of Michigan City, Indiana sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Coalition to Advance the Protection of Sports Logos (“CAPS”) of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs’ use of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property, including both trademark and patent protection. Also named as Defendant is Debevoise & Plimpton LLP of New York City.
Zip-A-Tee owns Trademark Registration No. 4,343,916, which was registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Patent Nos. D580,633 and D581,136, which were also issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
In 2012 and 2013, CAPS sent several letters to Zip-A-Tee claiming trademark infringement and counterfeiting by Plaintiffs of various trademarked sports logos. Among CAPS’ assertions was that Cross and/or Zip-A-Tee had offered for sale jerseys bearing “Lakers” and “Bulls” trademarks. CAPS also contacted GoDaddy.com and other website-hosting companies asserting that CAPS’ intellectual property had been infringed. In response, those companies apparently suspended Zip-A-Tee’s websites.
Cross, acting as his own Indiana trademark counsel, has sued Defendants on behalf of himself and the corporation. He makes the following claims for relief:
• Declaratory Relief of Non-Infringement of Trademark
• Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
Plaintiffs ask for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs also ask to be awarded statutory damages of $700 million “for each website removed by CAPS member Infringement request and claims [sic]” as well as $500,000 “per domain name change.” Additionally, Plaintiffs request an award of punitive damages of $5 billion due to the “willfully [sic], wanton, egregiously [sic] and insidious” nature of Defendants’ conduct.
Indiana Intellectual Property Law News