Trademark Infringement

May 22, 2015

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

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

April 9, 2015

Indiana Trademark Lawsuit: Bekins Sues Licensee of “Bekins” Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana trademark lawyer for Wheaton Van Lines, Inc. and Bekins Van Lines, Inc., both of Indianapolis, Indiana (collectively, “Bekins”), filed a trademark-infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Faulk-Collier Moving & Storage, LLC and David Vaughn, both of Louisiana, infringed the trademark BEKINS®, which has been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office as Trademark Registration No. 2427605.

Faulk-Collier, a moving-and-storage company in business since 1932, has been sued by Bekins for both trademark infringement and breach of contract. Bekins, which was founded in 1891, contends that it has made extensive use of the Bekins trademark, which it asserts has become both incontestable and famous. Bekins’ uses, it states, include inclusion in all of Bekins’ advertising materials, as well as being emblazoned on the side of all of the trucks, vans and trailers operating under Bekins’ authority for over ten years. Bekins has also sued Vaughn for more than $73,000, alleging that he personally guaranteed payment to Bekins.

In its Indiana trademark complaint, Bekins states that, in February 2014, it entered into an agreement with Faulk-Collier under which Faulk-Collier would serve as an interstate household agent for Bekins. Bekins further claims that, due to uncured breaches of that agreement by Faulk-Collier, Bekins terminated the arrangement in October 2014. After terminating the agreement, Bekins advised Defendants that they must cease all use of logos and trademarks owned by Bekins, including the removal of the Bekins trademark from all advertising, trucks, equipment, websites, and similar.

Nonetheless, contends Bekins, Faulk-Collier has continued to advertise moving services under the name “Bekins.” The accused uses include advertising on social media as well as operating numerous pieces of equipment in interstate commerce which bear one or more trademarks owned by Bekins. Bekins states that these uses by Faulk-Collier are unauthorized.

This federal lawsuit followed. In its complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark attorney, Bekins asserts the following:

• Count I – Breach of Contract
• Count II – Account Stated
• Count III – Federal Trademark Infringement

• Count IV – Federal and State Unfair Competition/Trademark Dilution

Bekins asks the court to enter preliminary and permanent injunctions; award Bekins monetary damages, statutory and otherwise, and punitive damages; and order Defendants to pay Bekins’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

March 20, 2015

Indiana Trademark News: Indiana Brewer Settles Trademark Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Munster, Indiana – The parties in this dispute were two beer makers, Three Floyds Brewing Company of Munster, Indiana and White Flame Brewing Company of Hudsonville, Michigan, both of which recently manufactured an imperial stout that each named “Black Flame.”

Three Floyds, Indiana’s second-largest brewer, made its Black Flame as a limited-run beer. Microbrewer White Flame, which opened in 2012, also produced a limited run of 600 bottles of a beer called Black Flame. White Flame’s version, which is aged in maple syrup bourbon barrels, was made to celebrate the company’s third anniversary.

White Flame learned of the Three Floyds beer in February and e-mailed Three Floyds to discuss the identically named beers. Bill White and Andy Steenbergen of White Flame later drove to Indiana to meet with Three Floyds.

March 13, 2015

Intellectual Property: Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights and Trade Secrets

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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:

February 23, 2015

Trademark Law: Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split – Trademark Tacking is a Jury Issue

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.”

February 19, 2015

Indiana Trademark Law: Court Strikes Response Brief Due to Untimely, Overlong Filing

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.

February 18, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Agdia Sues AC Diagnostics Alleging Deceptive Meta-tags and Other Trademark Harm

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.

February 13, 2015

Indiana Trademark Law: Consent Judgment Entered Enjoining Chanel’s Salon from Using “Chanel” in Business Name

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.