Unfair Competition

March 8, 2024

Protecting Quality: Nutramax Laboratories Takes Legal Action Against Alleged Unauthorized Resale

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. (“Nutramax”) have recently begun legal proceedings against CNB Retailers, LLC, Brett Hart, and Christina Miller (“Defendants”) alleging unauthorized resale of Nutramax products. The suit involves allegations concerning trademark infringement, unfair competition, and interference with contractual agreements.

Nutramax Labs and Nutramax Vet, entities headquartered in South Carolina, are known for their development and distribution of health supplements tailored for companion animals. Court documents state that the trademarks associated with Nutramax, such as NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES and PROVIABLE, are widely recognized within the industry. Nutramax products are sold through authorized retailers which may have online or brick-and-mortar locations.

The crux of Nutramax’s grievance lies in Defendants’ purported unauthorized sales of Nutramax products, notably on Amazon.com, under the seller account name “UniversalExports.” In addition to the accused products bearing the NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES and PROVIABLE trademarks, Nutramax asserts that the products being distributed by Defendants differ materially from those authorized by Nutramax, thus failing to meet the requisite quality standards. These requirements include proper storage conditions to maintain product quality and providing customer support and knowledge about Nutramax products.

February 2, 2024

CONNEX(T) Clash: Ventris Medical vs. Nexxt Spine Trademark Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In a recent legal action, California-based Plaintiff Secada Medical LLC, doing business as Ventris Medical, LLC, has filed a complaint against Defendant Nexxt Spine, LLC alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.

Court documents state that Ventris has expertise in creating, promoting, and distributing advanced tissue and bone healing solutions tailored to meet the specific requirements of different surgical fields. Ventris claims to have actively advertised and sold items bearing the CONNEXT® brand for numerous years. They allege that Nexxt Spine, and Indiana company, is violating Ventris’ trademark by using a similar mark, CONNEXX, for their own surgical implant kits.

The crux of Ventris’ complaint lies in the similarity between the CONNEXT® mark and Nexxt Spine’s CONNEXX mark, with the only difference being the final letter (“T” vs. “X”). Ventris asserts that both marks are used in connection with highly related surgical products and are targeted at the same consumers within the medical community, thus increasing the likelihood of confusion among consumers regarding the source or affiliation of the products.

December 22, 2023

Upholding Quality and Protecting Brands: Tempur Sealy v. Luxury Mattress & Furniture

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In the competitive world of mattresses and bedding, brand recognition and trust are paramount. Companies invest years in building their reputation, and protecting their intellectual property is crucial. Plaintiff Tempur Sealy International Inc. recently filed a lawsuit against Defendant Luxury Mattress & Furniture LLC, a suit highlighting the significance of safeguarding trademarks and brand integrity.

According to the complaint, Tempur Sealy is a renowned name in the realm of premium mattresses. Known for its TEMPUR-PEDIC products, Tempur Sealy claims distinctiveness based on their high-quality materials and unparalleled comfort. The company states that they meticulously develop, manufacture, and market products under various trademarks such as TEMPUR, TEMPUR-PEDIC, and TEMPUR SEALY. In addition, they describe exhaustive efforts to maintain their brand’s integrity, from stringent quality control measures to an authorized network of retailers, attempting to ensure that customers receive authentic products and services.

The Plaintiff claims that on February 2, 2023, it notified the Defendant that it was terminating Luxury Mattress’s authorization to sell Tempur Sealy products. The Plaintiff then alleges that Luxury Mattress continued to use the TEMPUR-PEDIC Marks in its Valparaiso, Indiana, retail location and on its website. Furthermore, Tempur Sealy asserts that the Defendant was using the TEMPUR-PEDIC Marks to advertise different products that were not associated with the Plaintiff’s product.

December 1, 2023

Court Order in HeathSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Defendants in trademark infringement case, HealthSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc. and Beth Porter have initiated a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, they have requested the case be transferred to the Northern District of California.

The dispute before Indiana Judge Matthew P. Brookman involves the use of the trademark SWEET NOTHINGS. In the midst of the case, Defendant Beth Porter initiated a separate lawsuit in California against HealthSmart, claiming fraud and unfair competition. Defendants argue that the defenses in the Indiana case overlap with Ms. Porter’s claims in the California case, indicating evidence and witness overlap as grounds for the case to be transferred. However, after careful consideration, the Court DENIED the Defendants’ request to transfer the Indiana case to the Northern District of California.

As for the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the judge stated that the issue revolves around whether Defendants’ contacts with Indiana justify personal jurisdiction. Defendants conceded that Sweet Nothings has minimum contacts with Indiana, but the parties disputed the significance of these contacts, the consideration of third-party retailer contacts, and whether exercising jurisdiction aligns with fair play and substantial justice. The Plaintiff argued that Sweet Nothing’s website, offering shipping options to Indiana, actively engaging with Indiana consumers, and facilitating sales through Amazon to Indiana residents, demonstrates purposeful conduct directed towards the Indiana market. Judge Brookman agreed with the Plaintiff and DENIED the Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

October 30, 2023

Mortgage Company Seeks FREEDOM From Alleged Trademark Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Jersey Plaintiff, Freedom Mortgage Corporation, has filed a complaint against New Albany, Indiana Defendant, Freedompoint, LLC, for claims of trademark infringement and related unfair competition in the home mortgage and refinancing field.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has owned and used several FREEDOM trademarks since December 1992, and its subsidiary (Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation) has owned and used ROUNDPOINT marks for the last 13 years. The trademarks that are at issue in the lawsuit are the FREEDOM MORTGAGE trademark (Reg. No. 4,631,944), the FREEDOM MORTGAGE logo trademark (Reg. No. 4,631,946), the ROUNDPOINT trademark (Reg. No. 3,595,914), and ROUNDPOINT EXCHANGE (Reg. No. 5,172,847). According to Court documents, all the trademarks are specified for use in financial services, specifically the mortgage industry.

Freedom Mortgage alleges that the Defendant, Freedompoint, began using the word and design marks FREEDOMPOINT, FREEDOMPOINT MORTGAGE, and their FREEDOMPOINT logo as early as 2020. It is the Plaintiffs’ belief that the FREEDOMPOINT mark used by the Defendants in similar financial and mortgage services is a combination of its own FREEDOM MORTGAGE and ROUNDPOINT marks and, therefore, causes confusion among its customer bases. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs’ contend that the Defendants previously knew about the FREEDOM marks owned by the Plaintiff and have refused to cease-and-desist from using the alleged Infringing Marks.

April 18, 2023

Amazon Storefront Sued for Alleged Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Plaintiff, Delta Faucet Company (“Delta”), founded in 1954, known as “America’s Faucet Innovation Leader” filed suit against Amazon Storefront Owner Ben Watkins (“Watkins”) for Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, Unfair Competition under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition.

According to the complaint, Delta markets and sells high quality kitchen, bar, beverage, bathroom, and tub faucets; pot fillers; sink and counter accessories; showerheads; bathing products; towel bars and similar accessories. Delta allows its products to be purchased by end-user consumers in the United Sates only from Delta itself of from sellers who are expressly authorized by Delta to sell Delta Products (“Authorized Sellers”). Delta permits Authorized Sellers to sell Delta Products in approved channels only and requires Authorized Sellers to abide by agreements, policies, and other rules that impose requirements relating to quality controls, customer services, and other sales practices (collectively, the “Delta Rules”).

Delta has registered numerous trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office including those listed in the table below:

April 4, 2023

115+ Year Old Jewelry Store Sues Competition for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Crown Point, Indiana – Plaintiff Albert’s Diamond Jewelers, Inc. (“Albert’s”) filed suit against AaLAND Diamond Jewelers (“AaLAND”) for Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, and Unfair Competition in violation of Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A), Indiana Common Law Trademark Infringement in violation of Ind. Code § 24-2-1-13.5 and Common Law Unfair Competition.

According to the complaint, Albert’s was established in 1905 in a tiny storefront in East Chicago, Indiana. They have grown to one of the largest and most successful family-owned jewelers in the entire country.

Cullen Wulf took over ownership of AaLand Diamond Jewelers in mid-2015, per their website. They tout to be the go-to-store for Northwest Indiana residence looking for custom jewelry, diamond engagement rings, and jewelry repairs. They also proclaim to be Northwest Indiana’s trusted gold & diamond buyer.

March 17, 2023

Alleged Deceptive Practices Result in Award Going to Wrong Business

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana –The Plaintiff, Roller Ready, LLC, filed suit against Defendants, LA Systems, LLC d/b/a Monkey Rung and Paul Kiley for participating in false marketing practices, violating the Indiana Deceptive Trade Practices Act, engaging in unfair competition under Indiana common law, and infringing on Roller Ready’s trademark.

Roller Ready, LLC is a company that manufactures and sells rollers for various purposes, including painting, cleaning, and home improvement projects. Roller Ready was founded in 2013 by a group of entrepreneurs who identified a need for a more efficient and effective way to clean paint rollers. The founders developed a new product that would allow users to clean paint rollers quickly and easily. The product, called the Roller Ready System, is a self-contained unit that allows users to clean paint rollers with a minimal amount of water and effort.

Monkey Rung is a product development company that is marketed by LA Systems, LLC which is owned and operated by Paul Kiley.

December 23, 2022

Gema USA, Inc. Sues Former Employee for Alleged Patent & Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Plaintiff, Gema USA, Inc. (“Gema”) is a Switzerland based company that was founded in 1897 as a metalworking company and operates out of Indianapolis. Since 2012, Gema has been a part of the global Graco Group, an internationally leading manufacture of liquid conveyance systems and components. According to the complaint, Gema is a worldwide leader in the design and manufacture of electrostatic powder coating control units, and powder feed systems. Gema sells a variety of powder guns and spray equipment in this district and throughout the United States.

The Defendant, First in Finishing, Inc., according to their website, was formed by Monte McClung in 2009 after a 20 year Career at Gema. First in Finishing, Inc.’s mission statement is listed to “Provide quality and reliable powder coating solutions while saving and controlling costs to customers.” They allege to be an Integrator of Gema Products, not a Gema Distributor.

December 2, 2022

Honest Abe Roofing Sues Franchisee for Violation of Agreements

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Terre Haute, Indiana – The Plaintiff, Honest Abe Roofing Franchise, Inc. (“Honest Abe”), is an Indiana Corporation with its principal place of business in Terre Haute, Indiana. Honest Abe has been installing, repairing, and maintaining residential roofs since 2005. They have numerous locations in multiple states.

The Defendants, DCH & Associates, LLC, and Honest Abe Roofing of Macon Georgia, LLC, are Georgia Limited Liability Companies. Dameion Harris and Christine Harris are listed as residents of Dacula Georgia and are the sole members of both LLC’s.