Trademark Infringement

July 2, 2021

Indianapolis-based Supermercado Sued for Alleged Trademark Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently, La Michoacana Meat Market TM Holdings, LLC (“La Michoacana”), the Plaintiff owns a number of federal trademark registrations for use in connection with its Mexican-styled grocery stores, meat markets, fruit shops, restaurants, and bakeries (the “LA MICHOACANA Marks”).

According to the Complaint, Defendants, Josue Lopez and Supermercado Jireh LLC, own and operate at least one Mexican-themed grocery store using the name “Super Mercado Jireh Pollo Michoacano. La Michoacana claims that Defendants’ use of “MICHOACANO” in connection with food-related goods and services is confusingly similar to the LA MICHOACANA Marks and therefore constitutes infringement of those marks.

La Michoacana is seeking damages for federal trademark infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). It is further claiming damages for false designation of origin and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). As La Michoacana claims it has suffered irreparable injury for which it has no adequate remedy at law, it is seeking a permanent injunction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). Finally, La Michoacana is seeking damages for common law unfair competition and unjust enrichment.

June 28, 2021

Defendants File Notice of Removal in Case Filed by Noble Roman’s

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Defendants, Gateway Triangle Corp., 7405 Indy Corp., 850 Indy Corp. Northlake Marketing, LLC and Thomas M. Collins, in a suit originally filed by Noble Roman’s, Inc. in the Superior Court of Marion County, Indiana filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

According to the Complaint, Noble Roman’s is the exclusive holder of licensing and franchising rights relating to the Noble Roman’s pizza brand. Noble Roman’s claims while they had a Franchise Agreement with Defendant Gateway, that Franchise Agreement terminated on December 31, 2019. Noble Roman’s filed suit seeking damages for Defendants’ alleged conversion and theft of Noble Roman’s property rights in violation of Indiana Code §§ 35-43-4-3 and 34-43-4-2. The Complaint further sought damages for breach of the Franchise Agreement, trademark infringement of U.S. Registration Nos. 987,069, 1,920,428, and 1,682,308, and unjust enrichment.

Defendants claim the case is removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 in part because federal question jurisdiction exists as Noble Roman’s asserted a federal claim under the Lanham Act. Further, Defendants assert the Southern District of Indiana has supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they form part of the same case or controversy as the federal trademark claims.

June 21, 2021

Indianapolis Bouldering LLC Seeks Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently Indianapolis Bouldering LLC, the Plaintiff, provides bouldering facilities as part of its fitness facility. According to the Complaint, Indianapolis Bouldering intends on opening a 52,000 square foot fitness facility (“North Mass Boulder”) in May 2021 using images of rocks and natural surfaces to create an organic branding aesthetic. The Defendants, BP Holdings Company, LLC, Seattle Bouldering Project, LLC, Minneapolis Bouldering Project, LLC, and Austin Bouldering Project, LLC (“Defendants”), allegedly operate climbing gyms in Washington, Texas, and Minneapolis with colorful and geometric branding.

Indianapolis Bouldering acknowledges in the Complaint that for “a brief period of time in late 2020, one of its members used content from one of Defendant’s websites (the “Website Content”) as a placeholder text during the website design process.” It further claims the Website Content was removed after being publicly available for two weeks and was replaced. The Parties apparently exchanged multiple letters regarding the Website Content and various other intellectual property rights. According to the Complaint, Defendants continued to threaten suit to enforce their purported intellectual property rights.

Therefore, Indianapolis Bouldering is seeking a declaratory judgment that (1) the intellectual property interests asserted by Defendants are invalid and/or unenforceable; (2) it is not infringing, has not infringed, and is not liable for infringing any allegedly enforceable intellectual property interest; and (3) non-violation of alleged trade secrets of Defendants.

June 16, 2021

Midcontinent Independent System Operator Sues for Alleged Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Carmel, Indiana – Apparently Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”), the Plaintiff, delivers electric power across 15 U.S. states and operates one of the world’s largest energy markets. In connection with its services, MISO claims it has three registered, incontestable, U.S. Trademarks 4,129,745, 4,616,653, and 4,136,817 (the “MISO Marks”). The MISO Marks include a wordmark for “MISO,” and two design marks: .

MISO claims that James F. Sullivan aka Jim Cassidy, the Defendant, under his business ADSNELLC, published a mobile application “Midcontinent ISO with Realtime Dashboard” (the “Infringing App”). The Infringing App and the Google Play listing for the Infringing App allegedly misappropriate and infringe the MISO Marks. Further, MISO claims ADSNELLC has published at least one other mobile application that encourages users to “hunt” and report illegal immigrants. Therefore, MISO claims the mere presence of the Infringing App is causing harm to MISO.

MISO is seeking injunctive relief and damages for trademark infringement and counterfeiting pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1117.

February 25, 2021

Rylie Investments LLC Sued for Alleged Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently, Armored Heating and Cooling Inc. (“AHC”), the Plaintiff, “is a leading provider of residential and commercial HVAC repair, service, sales and installations in central Indiana.” AHC claims the Defendant, Rylie Investments LLC (“Rylie”) also provides HVAC services in Indiana under the name “Armor Air.”

AHC claims to own U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90/058,569, U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90/084,330 and Indiana Trademark Registration ID 2020000026067 (the “AHC Trademarks”). According to the Complaint, Rylie filed a federal trademark application for the mark “ARMOR AIR” on July 20, 2020 under Application Serial No. 90/061,501. AHC further claims Rylie advertises its HVAC services despite not being a licensed HVAC contractor in Indianapolis, Indiana. Finally, AHC claims customers have been confused between the two companies and customers have complained that Rylie’s services are inferior and of poor quality.

AHC claims Rylie is liable for trademark infringement of the AHC Trademarks, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and the common law. AHC is further seeking an injunction for trademark infringement pursuant to Ind. Code §§ 24-2-1-13 and 24-2-1-14.

February 15, 2021

Makers of SPLENDA® Sue Speedway for Alleged Trade Dress Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently Heartland Consumer Products LLC (“Heartland”), the Plaintiff, is the owner of the SPLENDA® brand sugar substitute sweetener, which comes in yellow packaging (the “Yellow Trade Dress”). According to the Complaint, Heartland has also used a variety of legally protected trademarks in connection with its SPLENDA® brand products.

In addition to its U.S. trademarks, and common law rights to the Yellow Trade Dress, Heartland also claims to have obtained trademark registrations for the SPLENDA® intellectual property in over 90 countries.

Heartland claims Speedway, LLC (“Speedway”), the Defendant, has “engaged in the active deception of customers through misappropriation of the Yellow Trade Dress in a manner that makes Speedway’s yellow sucralose packets easily mistakable for SPLENDA®’s yellow packets. Per the Complaint, Speedway failed “to provide sufficient cues to the consumer that the yellow sweetener packets in Speedway stores are not the leading brand sucralose-based sweetener sold by Heartland.” Therefore, Heartland claims Speedway’s actions are likely to deceive consumers into believing its sweetener provided in yellow packets is SPLENDA®.

Due to Speedway’s use of yellow packaging for sucralose, Heartland claims it has committed trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and false advertising pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Heartland is seeking enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 because it claims “Speedway’s actions are intentional, willful, and calculated to cause confusion, mistake or deception.” Further, Heartland is claiming common law trade dress infringement under Ind. Code § 24-2-1-15. Next, Heartland is claiming common law unfair competition. Finally, Heartland is claiming trademark dilution under Ind. Code § 24-2-1-13.5.

January 11, 2021

The Trustees of Purdue University Sue for Alleged Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Trustees of Purdue University (“Purdue”), the Plaintiff, claims to own a number of registered and common law trademarks relating to Purdue University and its mascot (the “Trademarks”). According to the Complaint, Defendants, Vintage Brand, LLC and Sportswear Inc., sell Purdue-branded products utilizing the Trademarks without authorization or a license from Purdue. Purdue seeks declaratory judgment that Purdue owns and enjoys common law rights in the Trademarks and that Purdue’s rights are superior to the Defendants’ claim of any rights. Further, Purdue is seeking judgment against the Defendants for trademark infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114. Finally, Purdue is suing for common law passing off/unfair competition and trademark infringement.

Purdue University’s Registered Trademarks

December 18, 2020

Declaratory Judgment Sought Against Dog Trainer Donna Chandler

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – According to the Complaint, Donna Chandler (“Chandler”), one of the Defendants and owner of Co-Defendant, Show Colors, Inc. (“Show Colors”), is the author of a canine training book called “Good Dog!” Apparently, Chandler along with Plaintiffs, Kevin DeTrude (“DeTrude”) and Content & Commerce, Inc. (“Content” and collectively “Plaintiffs”), are members of nominal defendant, My K9 Behaves LLC (“My K9”). Content is allegedly in the business of website development and marketing and is owned by Keneth Zweigel (“Zweigel”). Per the Complaint, Chandler, DeTrude, and Zweigel began working on an online instruction course based upon two books written by Chandler (the “Online Class”) in January 2016. The parties apparently also discussed converting the text-based course to a video format.

Two videos were allegedly recorded and paid for by DeTrude in 2016 with a script for a third video written around February 2017. It appears Chandler, Content, and DeTrude officially formed their business on April 4, 2017, but the parties did not execute an Operating Agreement for the business until mid-June 2017, which included clauses assigning all common law and registered trademark and copyrights, including Chandler’s books and the publishing rights to My K9 (the “Assigned Rights”). Upon dissolution or the termination of Chandler’s ownership in My K9, the Assigned Rights would allegedly revert back to Chandler. According to the Complaint, shortly after the Operating Agreement was executed, a third video was recorded and paid for by Zweigel.

As My K9 was experiencing apparent success, the company entered into a Publishing Agreement for a third book to be written by Chandler with the rights assigned to My K9. Allegedly due to the length of time spent writing the book, the first Publishing Agreement was revoked, and a Second Publishing Agreement was put in place. The Plaintiffs claim Chandler then began demanding a greater portion of the profits and ultimately decided if the rights to the third book were not in her name only, she simply would not publish the third book. Chandler then apparently informed DeTrude and Content that she was withdrawing her membership in My K9 and demanded they cease and desist using her name or likeness and re-assign the Assigned Rights back to her.

DeTrude and Content are seeking a declaratory judgment of copyright and trademark ownership “including any derivative or original intellectual property created by or on behalf of My K9. Further, to the extent the Plaintiffs own any of the copyrighted works, they allege Chandler and Show Colors have infringed those works by profiting off the sale of the works individually and not for the benefit of My K9. To the extent Plaintiffs own any trademarks, they are similarly claiming trademark infringement. Plaintiffs have also brought derivative and direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty, usurpation of corporate opportunities, theft and conversion pursuant to I.C. § 35-43-4-3. Finally, Plaintiffs are claiming breach of contract for Defendants’ alleged breach of the Operating Agreement.

November 3, 2020

Indiana Trademark Litigation: JetPro Pilots, LLC Seeks Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – JetPro Pilots, LLC, the Plaintiff, apparently recruit, staff, and provide pilots, flight attendants, and technicians to its clients for use on their aircrafts. According to the Complaint, Defendants, Jet Pro, Inc. and Keith Kenneally, offer freight brokerage and forwarding services. The Defendants allegedly sent a cease and desist letter to JetPro Pilots claiming JetPro Pilots was violating Defendants’ U.S. Registration No. 3,186,308 (the “Jet Pro, Inc. Mark”). JetPro Pilots claims to have been in business since 2009 with the first allegation relating to confusion arising out of its use of the phrase “Jet Pro” coming from Defendants in July 2020, with no actual consumer confusion in the eleven years of co-existence.

Believing this to be a credible threat of immediate litigation, JetPro Pilots filed suit for a declaratory judgment for unenforceability of a trademark and a declaration of non-infringement pursuant to the Trademark Laws of the United States and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. JetPro Pilots asserts in favor of declaratory judgment that the parties’ logos are dissimilar and the parties provide different goods and services making consumer confusion unlikely.

November 2, 2020

Seventh Circuit Confirms Presumptive Fees in Copyright Litigation are Not Guaranteed

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of fees for the Defendant, David Knott (“Knott”), after Plaintiff, Timothy B. O’Brien LLC (“Apple Wellness”), voluntarily dismissed all its claims with prejudice.

Originally filed in the Western District of Wisconsin, Apple Wellness alleged that Knott, a former employee of Apple Wellness started a similar, competing wellness shop. Apple Wellness sued Knott for alleged trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. Knott countersued for tortious interference and retaliation. The District Court found the copyright claims baseless and denied a preliminary injunction on the trademark and trade dress claims. Apple Wellness later voluntarily dismissed all its claims.

While Apple Wellness submitted a motion to dismiss without prejudice, the District Court ordered Apple Wellness to withdraw its motion or accept a dismissal with prejudice because Knott had already expended resources litigating an injunction. The District Court further noted that in its opinion, no party’s claim was strong. Apple agreed to the dismissal with prejudice and the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims. The District Court subsequently denied Knott’s motion for fees leading to this appeal only as to the fees for the copyright claims and the appeal.

The Court of Appeals found that while Apple Wellness’s copyright claims were frivolous, it appears the claims were brought in good faith. Therefore, “there were minimal concerns regarding compensation and deterrence.” Further, Knott did not have to expend a large amount of time, money, or energy defending against the copyright claims as they were quickly dismissed. After considering all of the factors, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court denying Knott’s motion for fees.