Trademark Infringement

June 29, 2020

Greenfield Convenience Store Sues Indianapolis Competitor for Alleged Trademark Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – KS Equity Company, LLC (“KS”), the Plaintiff, operates a convenience store, Leo’s Market and Eatery (the “Leo’s Store”) in Indianapolis, Indiana. KS claims to own and use the following U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 5886802, 5886803, 5892871, and 5962680 (collectively, “Leo’s Trademarks”) in connection with the Leo’s Store. According to the Complaint, KS has also developed trade dress in the unique design elements of the Leo’s Store (“Leo’s Trade Dress”).

KS claims Defendants, RSM Investments LLC, Raghbir Singh, Pushpinder Singh, York Multani, and York Singh (collectively, “Defendants”), operate a convenience store or gas station called Leon’s in Indianapolis, Indiana (the “Leon’s Store”). Per the Complaint, the Leon’s Store is located approximately 22 miles away from the Leo’s Store and uses a confusingly similar name and logo compared to the Leo’s Trademarks. The brand of fuel sold in connection with each store, Marathon, allegedly exacerbates the potential customer confusion between the two stores.

June 2, 2020

Lafayette Company Seeks Damages for Alleged Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Lafayette, Indiana – Lafayette Venetian Blind, Inc. (“LVB”), the Plaintiff, claims it has developed substantial goodwill in connection with its distinctive U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3537759 for the word “Allure” for use in connection with window blinds and treatements. LVB claims that Defendant, Blinds to Go (U.S.), Inc. (“Blinds to Go”), uses the term “Allure” “to sell competing goods to many of the same consumers served by LVB.” According to the Complaint, LVB has demanding Blinds to Go cease and desist from using the “Allure” mark in connection with Blinds to Go’s window treatments, but it has failed to do so.

As such, LVB is seeking declaratory relief that it has superior rights to the term “Allure” and has the right to use the term “Allure” throughout the United States for “manufacturing, designing, and selling window treatments, blinds, shades, and related products and services.” Further, LVB is seeking damages for trademark infringement and unfair competition and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114 and 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a), respectively). Finally, LVB is claiming damages for common law trademark infringement and passing off/unfair competition.

The case was assigned to Judge Phillip P. Simon and Magistrate Judge John E. Martin in the Northern District and assigned Case 4:20-cv-00021-PPS-JEM.

April 23, 2020

Syndicate Sales Gains Home-Field Advantage in Trademark Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Syndicate Sales Inc., an Indiana corporation, along with six other Defendants filed notice to remove a case initially filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles by Plaintiff, Natural Pack, Inc. (“Natural Pack”). Defendants sought to remove the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and 1441 for federal question and diversity jurisdiction.

The removed case is a civil action entitled Natural Pack, Inc. v. Syndicate Sales, Inc. et al. Case No 19TSCV32476 (the “State Action”). Natural Pack filed the State Action on September 12, 2019, asserting claims for violation of Uniform Trade Secrets Act, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, negligence, violation of the Lanham Act, and California Statutory and common law infringement. Following removal to the Central District of California, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) or in the alternative to Change Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1401. The case was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana on January 21, 2020.

The Original Notice of Removal was filed October 15, 2019 in the Central District of California; and the case was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana on January 21, 2020 given Case No. 1:20-cv-00219-JRS-DLP and assigned to District Judge James R. Sweeney and Magistrate Judge Doris L. Pryor.

March 10, 2020

Tatuyou Sues Indiana-Based One Ink Seven for Alleged Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tatuyou, L.L.C. (“Tatuyou”) of Hastings, Minnesota, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, One Ink Seven LLC (“One Ink”) of Goshen, Indiana and Robert F. Smead (“Smead”), infringed its rights in its intellectual property portfolio. Tatuyou is seeking damages,costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Tatuyou claims to be in the business of selling products to be used in the tattoo industry with an intellectual property portfolio all relating to its sales business. According to the complaint, Tatuyou is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 9,546,281 (the “‘281 Patent”) entitled “Tattoo Stencil Composition and Method for Manufacturing.” Tatuyou also claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 8,545,613 (the “‘613 Patent”) entitled “Tattoo Transfer Pattern Printed by an Ink Jet Printer.”

According to the complaint, One Ink does business as “Electrum Supply” and owns and operates a website with the domain name: http://www.electrumsupply.com. Tatuyou claims that One Ink is infringing, actively inducing infringement, and contributorily infringing both the ‘281 Patent and the ‘613 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by offering for sale products named “Electrum Premium Tattoo Stencil Primer,” “Electrum Gold Standard Tattoo Stencil Primer,” “NOX Violet,” and “Eco Stencils.” Tatuyou’s attorney allegedly sent One Ink a letter on December 20, 2018 informing One Ink of the alleged infringement of the ‘281 Patent and a subsequent letter on June 12, 2019 to inform One Ink of the alleged infringement of the ‘613 Patent.

February 18, 2020

Indiana Trademark Litigation:Harley-Davidson Sues Harley Life, LLC for alleged Trademark and Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Terre Haute, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, H-D U.S.A., LLC and Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC (collectively “Harley”), both of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Harley Life, LLC (“Harley Life”) and Bill Lemon (“Lemon” and collectively “Defendants”), both of Vincennes, Indiana, infringed their rights in U.S. Copyright Reg. No. VA 1-987-746 and the United States Trademark Registrations below (collectively “Harley’s Intellectual Property”).

Mark	Reg. No.	Goods and Services
HARLEY	1406876	Clothing; namely—tee shirts for men, women and children; knit tops for women and girls; and children’s shirts
HARLEY	1683455	Shirts, tank tops, boots and sweatshirts
HARLEY	1708362	Embroidered patches for clothing
HARLEY	1352679	Motorcycles
HARLEY	3818855	Non-luminous, non-mechanical tin signs, non-luminous, non-mechanical metal signs
	4465604	Clothing, namely, shirts, hats, caps, belts, jackets, gloves, sweatshirts, lounge pants, wrist bands
	3525970	Jackets, coats, gloves, shirts, shorts, caps, hats, headwear, knit hats, belts, neckties, pants, sweatshirts, T-shirts, leather clothing, namely, leather jackets, leather gloves, footwear, namely, boots and vest extenders

February 5, 2020

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Baskin-Robbins Sues Franchisees for Alleged Breach of Contract and Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC and BR IP Holder LLC (collectively “Baskin-Robbins”), both of Canton, Massachusetts, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendants, Radhakrishna LLC (“Radha”) of Indianapolis, Indiana, Naik’s, LLC (“Naik’s”) of Louisville, Kentucky, and Mukesh Naik, a citizen of Indiana (collectively “Defendants”), alleging breach of contract, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition. Baskin-Robbins is seeking injunctive relief, judgment, including statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

According to the Complaint, Baskin-Robbins, along with its franchisees, currently operate more than 7,800 shops worldwide and have been in business for over seventy years. BR IP Holder LLC claims to own numerous registrations for marks relating to “Baskin-Robbins” and derivations thereof, most of which are incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Baskin-Robbins further claims that the public knows and recognizes their marks due to the extensive sales and marketing Baskin-Robbins has done while in business.

It is alleged that Mukesh Naik, individually, entered a franchise agreement for PC 361694 on or about September 14, 1998; Radha entered into a franchise agreement for PC 351607 on or about August 10, 2013; and Naik’s entered into two franchise agreements for PC 353400 and PC 360506 in 2014 (collectively the “Franchise Agreements”). Each of the alleged Franchise Agreements were entered into between the Defendants and Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC to operate Baskin-Robbins shops and each were allegedly personally guaranteed by Mukesh Naik. Baskin-Robbins claims that the Defendants defaulted under the Franchise Agreements and after three separate failures to cure their defaulting actions, were each sent a Notice of Termination. According to the Complaint, Defendants have continued using the Baskin-Robbins marks after the Notice of Termination was received by each Defendant, in breach of the Franchise Agreements.

January 30, 2020

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Jelly Belly Candy Company Sued for Alleged Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Circle City Marketing & Distributing, Inc. d/b/a/ Candy Dynamics (“Candy Dynamics”) of Carmel, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Jelly Belly Candy Company (“Jelly Belly”) of Fairfield, California, infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration No. 4,780,103 (the “‘103 Registration”) for “candy”. Candy Dynamics is seeking damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

Candy Dynamics claims it has sold candy for over twenty years and has offered various product lines including its TOXIC WASTE® line of sour candy. According to the Complaint, Candy Dynamics began using a two-tone pattern of alternating angled stripes (the “Hazard Stripe Mark”) for its advertising and packaging at least as early as 2001. Candy Dynamics claims that the Hazard Stripe Mark is inherently distinctive and it was therefore awarded trademark protection under the ‘103 Registration.

According to the Complaint, Jelly Belly has, with constructive knowledge of the Hazard Stripe Mark, advertised, promoted, and sold candy products, including its Bean Boozled product line using a “hazard stripe design” (the “Infringing Mark”). Candy Dynamics claims that on or about March 28, 2017, its counsel sent a letter to Jelly Belly informing it of the ‘103 Registration and alleged infringement. While Jelly Belly allegedly agreed to “phase out use of the solid stripe design,” Candy Dynamics claims Jelly Belly instead slightly modified its product by adding several “CAUTION” statements in front of the Infringing Mark and modified the width of the stripes. As such, Candy Dynamics is seeking damages for federal and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114 et seq., the common law, and 15 U.S.C. § 1125, respectively.

January 16, 2020

Indiana Trademark Litigation: CityMoms, Incorporated in Delaware, Seek Declaratory Judgment Against theCityMoms Greater Indianapolis LLC

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, CityMoms, Inc. (“CityMoms”) incorporated in the State of Delaware, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of “CityMoms” does not infringe the rights of Defendant, theCityMoms Greater Indianapolis LLC (“theCityMoms”) of Indianapolis, Indiana, or theCityMoms’ Trademark Registration No. 4,588,132 (the “‘132 Registration”) for “theCityMoms”. In the alternative, if there is a likelihood of confusion found between the two parties’ marks, CityMoms is claiming its use of the term predates that of theCityMoms. As such, CityMoms is seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement, and in the alternative, injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

According to the complaint, CityMoms conducts business online and offers, among other things, a mobile app and software system “that helps local businesses book unused spots in their kids’ activities programs and family events.” TheCityMoms is alleged to provide “a sisterhood for the modern mom” that offers a support network for moms, events and activities, and an official membership. CityMoms claims that theCityMoms has threatened to take action against it for trademark infringement and unfair competition and has interfered with CityMoms’ ability to sell its app to a third party.

CityMoms’ services are alleged to have begun in 2012 with theCityMoms filing its application for the ‘132 Registration on January 2, 2014. This application was given Serial No. 86156171 (the “‘171 Application”) and was filed for the goods and services of International Class 041, which includes “Educational and entertainment services, namely, providing motivational and educational speakers; Organizing, arranging, and conducting playdates, mom-only evenings, open play times, shopping parties, fitness classes, volunteering and cultural events”. The ‘171 Application was submitted with a statement by Melissa Kondritz and Jeanine Bobenmoyer that “theCityMoms” was used in commerce and related with the company at least as early as March 1, 2013. However, CityMoms claims that the domain name http://thecitymoms.org/ was not registered until March 8, 2013 and therefore could not have existed prior to that date. CityMoms further claims it has found no evidence theCityMoms provided motivational and educational speakers on or before January 2, 2014 as part of its business and therefore, the ‘171 Application was filed with “willfully false material statements that constituted fraud” and should make the ‘132 Registration invalid and unenforceable.

January 15, 2020

Indiana Trademark Litigation: F.F.T., LLC Seeks Damages for Alleged Infringement Involving “Functional Family Therapy℠”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, F.F.T., LLC (“F.F.T.”) having a principal place of business in Seattle, Washington, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Thomas Sexton, Ph.D. (“Sexton”), Functional Family Therapy Associates, Inc. (“Functional Family Therapy”), Astrid Van Dam (“Van Dam”), and FFT Partners, LLC (“FFT Partners” and collectively “Defendants”), infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration Nos. 4,389,569 for the mark FFT-CW®, 4,435,321 for the mark FFP®, and 5,267,897 for the mark FUNCTIONAL FAMILY THERAPY CHILD WELFARE®. F.F.T. is seeking injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

F.F.T. claims it “is an organization dedicated to training psychotherapists in the ‘Functional Family Therapy’ protocol that its founder, Dr. James F. Alexander (“Dr. Alexander”), developed through decades of research and practical application.” According to the complaint, F.F.T. conducts business in thirty-three states and ten foreign countries. Sexton and Van Dam are individuals, alleged to be residing in Bloomington, Indiana. Functional Family and FFT Partners are a corporation and limited liability company, respectively, each alleged to have a principal place of business in Bloomington, Indiana.

According to the Amended Complaint, Dr. Alexander began studying and developing his family based method of therapy for delinquent adolescents in the 1960s and began referring to his therapy model as “Functional Family Therapy” in 1982 with the publication of his first book. F.F.T. claims this protocol has become very successful and is now referred to simply as “FFT.” Dr. Alexander along with non-party, Richard Harrison (“Harrison”), and Sexton allegedly formed FFT, Inc. in 1998 to train therapists in the Functional Family Therapy protocol. Per the complaint, Harrison left the company four years later and Douglass Kopp (“Kopp”) entered the company as CEO and Managing Member. F.F.T. claims it was formed to pursue the same efforts as FFT, Inc., which was subsequently administratively dissolved.

January 13, 2020

Trademark Law: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Affirms Award of Over $17.3 Million

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion reversing the denial of attorney’s fees, remanding for an entry of a reasonable fee reward under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), and affirming all other aspects of the judgment of the district court in the case of 4SEMO.com Incorporated (“4SEMO”) versus Southern Illinois Storm Shelters, Inc. (“SISS”), et al. (collectively “Defendants”). While the Defendants originally sued 4SEMO in this case, the case was reconfigured as above for the July 2017 bench trial and decision, which was on appeal.

According to the opinion, 4SEMO began selling storm shelters manufactured by SISS in 2005. 4SEMO is a Missouri-based home-remodeling firm while Robert Ingoldsby and his brother Scott (the “Ingoldsbys”) run the Illinois based company, SISS. 4SEMO began marketing the storm shelters under a wordmark “Life Saver Storm Shelters” and a matching logo (the “Marks”) that it affixed to the shelters it sold in Missouri and Arkansas pursuant to an exclusive dealership agreement with SISS. The Ingoldsbys were granted a limited license to use the 4SEMO Marks for shelters marketed in southern Illinois. However, the Ingoldsbys violated the limited license by using the 4SEMO Marks on shelters sold throughout the country.

SISS sued 4SEMO for trademark infringement over the “Life Saver” wordmark, claiming they had used it prior to 4SEMO and that they had ownership of the wordmark. 4SEMO counterclaimed for trademark infringement and false endorsement, along with various state-law claims. After SISS’s claim did not survive summary judgement, 4SEMO’s counterclaims were tried to the bench and the district court found in favor of 4SEMO on all counts and awarded $17,371,003 in damages for profit disgorgement and $26,940 for breach of contract. However, 4SEMO’s motion for vexatious-litigation sanctions and attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Lanham Act, respectively, was denied.