Unfair Competition

December 11, 2013

Project Management Academy Sues Former Instructor for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Indianapolis, Indiana – eCity Market, Inc. d/b/a Project Management Academy (“PMA”) of Lafayette, Indiana has sued Vaughn Scott Burch (“Burch”) and Graywood Consulting Group, Inc. d/b/a Graywood Training Solutions of Leesburg, Virginia (collectively, “Graywood”) alleging infringement of its Project Management Professional examination and certification training. This suit was initially filed in Delaware County Circuit Court No. 4 but was removed to the Southern District of Indiana.

PMA offers preparation courses for the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Professional (“PMP”) examination and certification process. PMA states that Burch was one of its most-trusted PMP course instructors in the Washington, D.C. area and that, in connection with that position, PMA provided him with access to its proprietary manner of conducting its PMP-examination preparation courses. Moreover, PMA claims that it commissioned Burch and Graywood, Burch’s company, to draft and prepare as a “work for hire” certain training modules that would be for PMA’s exclusive use.

PMA alleges that Burch and Graywood are now teaching PMP courses that are in direct competition with PMA. It also contends that Defendants have stolen PMA’s confidential, proprietary and copyrighted materials to further their own course offerings. PMA further indicates that Defendants are violating the non-competition covenants by reproducing PMA’s copyrighted materials and are passing them off as their own. Finally, PMA contends that Defendants are attempting to engage in unfair competition with PMA by publishing student testimonials as if they were from Defendants’ students when, PMA states, the testimonials were actually given by the students of PMA.

An intellectual property lawyer for PMA filed a complaint alleging the following:

• Count I – Breach of Contract
• Count II – Breach of Duty of Loyalty
• Count III – Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
• Count IV – Theft/Conversion
• Count V – Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relationship and Advantage
• Count VI – Lanham Act Violations
• Count VII – Unfair Competition

PMA asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions; an order requiring the return of all PMA materials; judgment in favor of PMA on the seven counts listed; damages, including treble and punitive damages; attorney’s fees and costs; and interest.

Practice Tip: There has also been a growing trend, perhaps fueled in part by states’ difficulties in paying increasing unemployment benefits, to limit via legislation the enforceability of non-compete agreements. Indiana considers non-compete agreements to be in restraint of trade and, thus, construes them narrowly. Among the states that have considered such limitations are Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Virginia. However, even in those cases where a non-compete agreement is found to be unenforceable, such a finding will not prevent a party from suing to protect its other rights, such as the intellectual property rights granted under copyright law.

December 2, 2013

Wounded Warrior Project Sues Help Indiana Vets for False Advertising, Defamation and Unfair Competition

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Wounded Warrior Project, Inc. (“WWP”) of Jacksonville, Florida has sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Dean M. Graham and Help Indiana Vets, Inc. (“HIVI”), both of Acton, Indiana, defamed WWP. The lawsuit also asserts that HIVI engaged in false advertising and unfair competition. While this suit did not allege trademark infringement, it included references to WWP’s trademark, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 30014447, which has been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office.

WWP is a Virginia nonprofit corporation, which has been registered with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. It was founded in 2003 as a small nonprofit corporation to provide comfort items to service members injured in combat after September 11, 2001. In the years which followed, WWP grew into a complete rehabilitative effort to assist service members injured in combat with both visible and invisible injuries (such as post-traumatic stress disorder, combat and operational stress, and depression) as they recover and transition back to civilian life.

HIVI is believed to be an Indiana nonprofit corporation. WWP indicates that HIVI was founded in April 2013 by Graham. WWP asserts that HIVI’s business is to offer financial help to Indiana veterans through donor support as a nonprofit. As such, WWP contends, HIVI is a direct competitor of WWP.

WWP asserts that, over the last decade, it has invested substantial time and resources to develop the WWP mark through national direct-mail campaigns, marketing, corporate product promotions and press releases. WWP indicates that it has received substantial national and local press coverage for its efforts. It claims that its success is due in no small part to the support of the media and celebrities who support WWP. Finally, WWP indicates that, over the last decade, it has received approximately 30 billion media impressions with an estimated publicity value of $500 million. WWP claims that, due to its efforts, the WWP mark has become famous.

This suit is founded upon, inter alia, WWP’s contentions that HIVI published false and misleading statements of fact regarding WWP. The assertions allegedly made by HIVI included that Wounded Warrior Project is a fraud and that it is pulling the biggest “Oke Doke” ever pulled on the American public. WWP contends that, on the page containing the purportedly false and misleading statements about WWP, a PayPal link is included so that users of the HIVI site may make charitable donations to HIVI.

WWP further alleges that HIVI has contacted numerous government entities and officials, as well as multiple media outlets, claiming that WWP is a fraud.

Trademark attorneys for WWP assert the following in their complaint against Graham and HIVI:

• Count I: False Advertising – Lanham Act
• Count II: Criminal Deception – Indiana Crime Victims Act
• Count III: Defamation – Indiana Common Law
• Count IV: Unfair Competition – Indiana Common Law
• Count V: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships – Indiana Common Law
• Count VI: Unjust Enrichment – Indiana Common Law

WWP asks the court for a permanent injunction; treble damages under the Indiana Crime Victims Act; an order compelling Defendants to disgorge all financial benefits realized as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct; and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Paul Overhauser was interviewed regarding this unusual lawsuit between nonprofit entities. See here.

November 25, 2013

Eli Lilly Sues Singpet for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Sebastian Wiradharma a/k/a Sebastian Singh (“Singh”) and Singpet Pte. Ltd., both of Singapore, infringed the trademark COMFORTIS, Registration Number 3,370,168, which has been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office.

Lilly, through its Elanco Animal Health Division, manufactures, markets and sells pet medicines, including flea-control preparations and treatments for parasitic infestations. It contends that it has made long and continuous of the name and mark “Elanco” in connection with veterinary preparations. It also asserts that it has long used the “Comfortis” mark, which was registered by the U.S. Trademark Office in 2008. Lilly claims that it has sold tens of millions of dollars’ worth of veterinary preparations, pet medicines and related goods and services under the Elanco and Comfortis marks.

Among Lilly’s products is Trifexis, a once-monthly veterinary medication, which contains the veterinary chemicals spinosad and milbemycin oxime. Trifexis is for the prevention of heartworms, fleas and intestinal worms. It is sold in the United States with what Lilly contends to be an inherently distinctive and non-functional trade dress. Trifexis is available only by prescription through licensed veterinarians. Lilly sells a similar product in Australia, with similar trade dress, under the name “Panoramis.”

Defendant Singh, who is allegedly the principal of Singpet, and Singpet do business over the Internet, including via websites at www.singpet.com, www.petcorporate.com, www.fleastuff.com and http://www.ourpetworld.net/home.asp, among others.

Defendants are accused of marketing and selling European and Australian versions of Elanco- and Comfortis-branded pet medicines to customers in the United States. Specifically, Lilly contends that Defendants market “Panoramis (Triflexis)” [sic] on their websites. While the Defendants are apparently based in Singapore, this marketing is allegedly directed at consumers in the United States. Lilly asserts that units designed for sale in markets such as Europe and Australia are neither intended nor authorized for sale in the United States.

Lilly further objects to the Defendants’ purported advertisement of units designed for the Australian and European markets as identical to or interchangeable with the units designed for sale in the United States. It states that that the Elanco-branded “Panoramis” pet medicines are materially different from its Elanco-branded “Trifexis” pet medicines sold in the United States.

Lilly contends that the Elanco- and Comfortis-branded pet medicines are tailored to meet the requirements of different geographic regions and countries to reflect the differences in language, climate, government regulations, units of measure, local addresses and telephone numbers, among other things.

Trademark attorneys for Lilly assert that Defendants are not authorized to use Lilly’s Elanco or Comfortis names and trade dress in connection with the sale of once-monthly spinosad and milbemycin oxime pet medicines outside of Australia. Lilly has sued Defendants, asserting willful infringement of its trademarks. It asserts the following in its complaint:

• First Claim for Relief: Trademark Infringement in Violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act
• Second Claim for Relief: Unfair Competition in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
• Third Claim for Relief: False Advertising in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
• Fourth Claim for Relief: Unfair Competition in Violation of Indiana Common Law

Lilly asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions; damages, including treble damages; the Defendants to be required to notify all purchasers of the accused products, request the return of the products and refund the price paid; pre- and post-judgment interest and costs of the suit.

Practice Tip:

Lilly is objecting to the so-called “grey market” for its veterinary pharmaceuticals. Prices for drugs can vary considerably between countries, often as a result of government intervention in the market. As a result, a “grey market” – selling a drug intended for use in one country to consumers in another country – can emerge. In this complaint, Lilly has framed its objection to a grey market for its pet-care pharmaceuticals as an intellectual property dispute.

Intellectual property law requires a balancing of competing interests. On the one hand, innovation will be discouraged if inventors, authors and other creators of intellectual property are not allowed to benefit from their labors. Such a problem arises if others are allowed to use creators’ ideas without compensating them (the “free-rider problem”). On the other hand, the public good is promoted by encouraging free competition in the marketplace and easy alienability of property.

Under the first-sale defense to infringement, once a copy of an item protected by intellectual property laws has been sold to a purchaser, the creator of the intellectual property generally may not prevent that purchaser from reselling or otherwise disposing of the item. In patent and copyright law, the first-sale rule in most cases provides an absolute defense against infringement. In patent law, this is also referred to as “patent exhaustion.” As a result, the purchaser of a copy of the work and the owner of the intellectual property rights to that work may become competitors in the marketplace if the purchaser goes to resell a copy of the work.

The first-sale defense is not as broad in a trademark context. Enunciated in 1924 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the general rule for the resale of a trademark item provides that, after a trademark owner has sold a trademarked product, the buyer ordinarily may resell that product under the original mark without incurring any trademark liability. See Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924). However, unlike patent or copyright law, trademark law has as one of its primary goals preventing confusion among potential purchasers. Typically, but not always, such confusion will not exist where a genuine article bearing an authentic trademark is sold. While there is a split among the circuits concerning the extent to which consumer confusion is a relevant factor, some hold that certain types of confusion about a product’s origin cause the first-sale defense to be inapplicable to the resale of a trademarked good. See Au-Tomotive Gold Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 603 F.3d 1133, 1134 (9th Cir. 2010).

November 20, 2013

Eli Lilly Sues Pet Supply, Pet Products Net and Graham Nelson for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana (“Lilly”) has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Graham Nelson, Zoja Pty Ltd. d/b/a Pet Supply International Ltd., and Pet Products Net, all of Australia, infringed the trademark COMFORTIS, Trademark Registration No. 3,370,168, which has been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office.

Lilly, through its Elanco Animal Health Division, manufactures, markets and sells pet medicines, including flea-control preparations and treatments for parasitic infestations. It contends that it has made long and continuous of the name and mark “Elanco” in connection with veterinary preparations. It also asserts that it has long used the “Comfortis” mark, which was registered by the U.S. Trademark Office in 2008. Lilly claims that it has sold tens of millions of dollars’ worth of veterinary preparations, pet medicines and related goods and services under the Elanco and Comfortis marks.

Among Lilly’s products is Trifexis, a once-monthly veterinary medication, which contains the veterinary chemicals spinosad and milbemycin oxime. Trifexis is for the prevention of heartworms, fleas and intestinal worms. It is sold in the United States with what Lilly contends to be an inherently distinctive and non-functional trade dress. Trifexis is available only by prescription through licensed veterinarians. Lilly sells a similar product in Australia, with similar trade dress, under the name “Panoramis.”

Defendants Nelson, Zoja, Pet Supply and Pet Products Net do business over the Internet, including at the website www.bestvaluepetsupplies.com. Among the products listed on their website is “Panoramis aka Trifexis.” While the companies are apparently based in Australia, the website indicates that they ship to the United States.

Lilly has sued Defendants over the sale of Panoramis to the United States. It asserts that units designed for sale in markets such as Europe and Australia are neither intended nor authorized for sale in the United States. Lilly further indicates that the Elanco- and Comfortis-branded pet medicines are tailored to meet the requirements of different geographic regions and countries to reflect the differences in language, climate, government regulations, units of measure, local addresses and telephone numbers, among other things.

Lilly objects to the Defendants’ purported advertisement of units designed for the Australian and European markets as identical to or interchangeable with the units designed for sale in the United States. It states that that the Elanco-branded “Panoramis” pet medicines are materially different from its Elanco-branded “Trifexis” pet medicines sold in the United States.

Trademark attorneys for Lilly assert that Defendants are not authorized to use Lilly’s Elanco or Comfortis names and trade dress in connection with the sale of once-monthly spinosad and milbemycin oxime pet medicines outside of Australia. Lilly has sued Defendants, asserting willful infringement of its trademarks. It asserts the following in its complaint:

• First Claim for Relief: Trademark Infringement in Violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act
• Second Claim for Relief: Unfair Competition in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
• Third Claim for Relief: False Advertising in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
• Fourth Claim for Relief: Unfair Competition in Violation of Indiana Common Law

Lilly asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions; damages, including treble damages; the Defendants to be required to notify all purchasers of the accused products, request the return of the products and refund the price paid; pre- and post-judgment interest and costs of the suit.

Practice Tip:

Lilly is objecting to the so-called “grey market” for its veterinary pharmaceuticals. Prices for drugs can vary considerably between countries, often as a result of government intervention in the market. As a result, a “grey market” – selling a drug intended for use in one country to consumers in another country – can emerge. In this complaint, Lilly has framed its objection to a grey market for its pet-care pharmaceuticals as an intellectual property dispute.

Intellectual property law requires a balancing of competing interests. On the one hand, innovation will be discouraged if inventors, authors and other creators of intellectual property are not allowed to benefit from their labors. Such a problem arises if others are allowed to use creators’ ideas without compensating them (the “free-rider problem”). On the other hand, the public good is promoted by encouraging free competition in the marketplace and easy alienability of property.

Under the first-sale defense to infringement, once a copy of an item protected by intellectual property laws has been sold to a purchaser, the creator of the intellectual property generally may not prevent that purchaser from reselling or otherwise disposing of the item. In patent and copyright law, the first-sale rule in most cases provides an absolute defense against infringement. In patent law, this is also referred to as “patent exhaustion.” As a result, the purchaser of a copy of the work and the owner of the intellectual property rights to that work may become competitors in the marketplace if the purchaser goes to resell a copy of the work.

The first-sale defense is not as broad in a trademark context. Enunciated in 1924 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the general rule for the resale of a trademark item provides that, after a trademark owner has sold a trademarked product, the buyer ordinarily may resell that product under the original mark without incurring any trademark liability. See Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924). However, unlike patent or copyright law, trademark law has as one of its primary goals preventing confusion among potential purchasers. Typically, but not always, such confusion will not exist where a genuine article bearing an authentic trademark is sold. While there is a split among the circuits concerning the extent to which consumer confusion is a relevant factor, some hold that certain types of confusion about a product’s origin cause the first-sale defense to be inapplicable to the resale of a trademarked good. See Au-Tomotive Gold Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 603 F.3d 1133, 1134 (9th Cir. 2010).

November 15, 2013

Ambre Blends Sues doTERRA For Trademark Infringement of “Solace”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Ambre Blends, LLC of Fishers, Indiana has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that doTERRA, Inc., doTERRA International, LLC, both of Orem, Utah (collectively, “doTERRA”) and Kerry Dodds d/b/a Kerry Essentials of Indianapolis, Indiana (“Kerry”) infringed SOLACE®, Trademark No. 4266473, which has been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office.

In its complaint, Ambre Blends claims to have been producing organic body products since 2001. It offers four fragrances which are designed to be worn by both women and men. Founded in 2008, doTERRA offers essential oils both as single oils and as proprietary essential oil blends via independent product consultants. Both companies claim rights in the mark “Solace” in connection with essential oil products.

Ambre Blends asserts that it has used the Solace mark continuously in commerce since at least as early as February 2007. It holds a federally registered trademark on the mark in connection with “Aromatic preparations, namely, oils, body creams, body sprays, soaps, shower gel; Beauty creams; Body and beauty care cosmetics; Body cream; Body sprays; Essential oils for use in aromatherapy; Essential oils for use in manufacturing of candles, lip balm, shower gel, shampoo, conditioner; Face and body lotions; Non-medicated skin creams with essential oils for use in aromatherapy; Oils for perfumes and scents; Perfume; Perfume oils; Perfumed creams; Perfumed soaps; Scented body spray; Skin soap.” It describes its essence as having been “created for the sole purpose of comfort and attraction” and marks its products with “Solace®”.

According to the doTERRA website, doTERRA sells its product, a blend for women, as “Solace™”. It describes its oil as “a proprietary blend of Certified Pure Therapeutic Grade® essential oils carefully formulated to balance hormones and manage symptoms of PMS and the transitional phases of menopause.” (It also provides the disclaimer, required by the Food and Drug Administration, that the “product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease.”)

In its complaint, Ambre Blends contends that doTERRA willfully and intentionally used the Solace mark knowing both that the mark was the property of Ambre Blends and that such a use was unlawful. It further asserts that doTERRA’s use of the mark was intended to cause confusion, mistake or deception among the general public and that doTERRA acted in bad faith.

The complaint asserts, inter alia, violations of the Lanham Act and unfair competition:

• Count I: Trademark Infringement
• Count II: False Designation of Origin
• Count III: Unfair Competition
• Count IV: Forgery
• Count V: Corrective Advertising Damages
• Count VI: Declaratory Judgment
• Count VII: Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief

Trademark counsel for Ambre Blends seeks a declaratory judgment; a preliminary injunction; a permanent injunction; damages, including treble damages; costs and attorney’s fees; the transfer to Ambre Blends of any domain name that includes “Solace”; and corrective-advertising damages.

Practice Tip #1: From the complaint, this appears to be a straightforward case of infringement. However, Ambre Blends may have a tougher case than is obvious from the complaint itself. It appears from doTERRA’s sales literature that doTERRA has used the mark “Solace” along with “™”, thus claiming rights in the mark, at least as early as 2011. In contrast, Ambre Blends did not file its application until April 4, 2011; it was published for opposition on October 16, 2012. A federal registration confers a presumption of validity. However, here, the right to use the mark “Solace” may result in a battle of the facts.

Practice Tip #2: This complaint highlights the difference between the “®” mark and the “™” mark. While the former may not be used until a mark has been granted a federal registration, the latter has no such requirement. Instead, it may be used whenever a business wishes to put competitors on notice that it considers the mark to be its intellectual property.

Practice Tip #3: doTERRA is currently embroiled in litigation in both state and federal court in Utah with Young Living, another giant in the essential-oil industry.

November 7, 2013

WindStream Sues Rambo and Keebler for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – WindStream Technologies, Inc. of North Vernon, Indiana filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Rambo LLC, Rambo Montrow Corporation (collectively, “Rambo”) and Rick Keebler, all of Madison, Indiana, as well as ten unidentified John Does residing in Indiana, infringed its trademarked TurboMill, Trademark Registration No. 3,986,494, which has been registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

WindStream manufactures wind turbines for municipal, residential and commercial use. Those turbines are shipped worldwide from its Indiana manufacturing facility. It contracted with Rambo and Keebler, who is asserted to be a principal of the Rambo entities, to provide component parts and to act as an authorized dealer of TurboMill turbines in certain territories.

WindStream has multiple contractual disputes with Defendants and Defendants’ predecessors in interest and asserts that component parts in which WindStream has an interest are being held “hostage” in an attempt to renegotiate the terms of one of the contracts. Further, WindStream contends that the failure of Defendants to deliver the parts has damaged its business. WindStream also charges Defendants with unfair competition, claiming that they are selling WindStream products, including WindStream’s TurboMill, as their own. Finally, it asserts that, among the prospective customers that Keebler and Rambo are targeting are individuals and entities that had previously been identified by WindStream as potential customers.

In its complaint, filed by the trademark attorney for WindStream, the following counts are alleged:

• Federal Unfair Competition and Passing Off (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
• Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
• Breach of Contract (Dealer Agreement)
• Breach of Contract (Purchase Orders)
• Interference with Contract and Prospective Economic Advantage

WindStream asks the court for an injunction prohibiting trademark infringement and similar conduct; damages, including treble damages; punitive damages for Defendants’ willful and malicious acts; and attorney’s fees and costs of the lawsuit.

Practice Tip: The complaint asserts that the trademark for TurboMill was registered on June 28, 2001 and that the mark has been used in commerce since at least 2009. In contrast, the registration is listed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as having occurred on June 28, 2011 with the mark shown as having first been used in commerce in 2011, the same year in which WindStream began manufacturing its wind turbines. While the former inconsistency, which adds exactly ten years to the apparent life of the trademark, can be assumed to be a typographical error, the origin of the latter inconsistency, which adds another two years to the period during which the TurboMill mark is claimed to have been used in commerce, in unclear.

October 21, 2013

Dissimilarity Between Trademarked Goods and Allegedly Infringing Goods is Not Dispositive

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana — In June 2013, Australian Gold, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana sued Devoted Creations, LLC of Oldsmar, Florida in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement of the mark LIVE LAUGH TAN, Trademark Registration No. 4,154,194, which has been registered with the U.S. Trademark Office. Devoted Creations moved to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.

Australian Gold has been in the business of selling indoor-tanning preparations for over 20 years. Devoted Creations also sells indoor-tanning preparations. Australian Gold contended in its complaint that, since at least October 2010, it has used the registered mark “LIVE LAUGH TAN” as a trade name and trademark in conjunction with sales of its Australian Gold line of indoor-tanning products.

Devoted Creations, which competes directly with Australian Gold for customers, uses the name “LIVE LOVE TAN” to advertise its indoor-tanning preparations. Australian Gold alleges that Devoted Creations’ use of a similar trademark to sell products similar to those which it sells infringes on its intellectual property rights in the “LIVE LAUGH TAN” trademark. It further asserted that Devoted Creations was aware of the goodwill and reputation associated with Australian Gold’s trademark, and that Devoted Creations intentionally copied that trademark. Australian Gold sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

In this opinion, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson addressed the request of Defendant Devoted Creations to invoke Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and dismiss the case against it on the basis that Australian Gold had stated no plausible claim. Devoted Creations asserted that the claims against it failed because Devoted Creations’ use of a mark on one product – indoor tanning preparations – could not as a matter of law infringe on Australian Gold’s use of its own mark in conjunction with an entirely different product – tote bags, the class of products for which the trademark is registered.

Judge Magnus-Stinson pointed out that Devoted Creations made two errors. Devoted Creations’ first error was one of fact. Devoted Creations asserted that Australian Gold did not use the trademark in conjunction with the sale of tanning products but, rather, that the mark was used only for tote bags. The court did not accept this version of the facts. Instead, the court referred to the standard of review for a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” As Australian Gold had explicitly alleged in its complaint that its use of the trademark was “in conjunction with the marketing and sale of its AUSTRALIAN GOLD® line of indoor tanning preparations,” the court was not persuaded that a motion to dismiss was appropriate.

The second error was one of law. Even if it were true that the purported infringement occurred only on a different type of goods, that dissimilarity is not dispositive, as the analysis of likelihood of confusion requires the application of a seven-factor test.

Finally, the court reminded Devoted Creations and its counsel of the ethical duties imposed by “both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) (stating that a motion presented to the Court functions as a certification by the presenting attorney that ‘the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law’) and 28 U.S.C § 1927 (providing for sanctions for unreasonably protracting litigation) when filing a motion with the Court.”

Practice Tip: The precedent in the Seventh Circuit is that similarity between a plaintiff’s goods and a defendant’s allegedly infringing goods is only one of seven factors considered in evaluating whether there is a likelihood of confusion. Dissimilarity alone is not dispositive. Even when products are “quite different,” an evaluation of the other factors is required. The factors are:

1. the similarity between the marks in appearance and suggestion;
2. the similarity of the products;
3. the area and manner of concurrent use;
4. the degree of care likely to be exercised by consumers;
5. the strength of the plaintiff’s mark;
6. any actual confusion; and
7. the intent of the defendant to “palm off” his product as that of another.

September 13, 2013

Steak n Shake Sues for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Denver, Colorado — Intellectual property lawyers for Steak n Shake Enterprises, Inc. and Steak n Shake, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana (collectively “Steak n Shake”) sued in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that Globex Company, LLC; Springfield Downs, LLC; Christopher Baerns; Larry Baerns; Kathryn Baerns and Control, LLC, all of Colorado, are infringing the “Steak n Shake” marks, which have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office.

Non-party Steak n Shake Operations, Inc., Steak n Shake Enterprises’ parent company, has continuously operated Steak n Shake restaurants specializing in burgers and milkshakes since 1934. There are currently 415 company-owned Steak n Shake restaurants in 15 states across the country. In addition, Steak n Shake Enterprises grants franchises to establish and operate Steak n Shake restaurants pursuant to written franchise agreements with Steak n Shake Enterprises, and written license agreements with Steak n Shake, LLC. There are currently 100 franchised Steak n Shake restaurants operating in 23 states, including Colorado. Steak n Shake asserts that the Steak n Shake trademarks, and the products and services offered in association with those marks, have been extensively promoted throughout the United States for many years.

This action against Defendants arose subsequent to the termination of franchise and license agreements between Plaintiffs Steak n Shake Enterprises, Inc., as franchisor, and Steak n Shake, LLC, as licensor, and Defendants as franchisees, licensees and/or guarantors. Steak n Shake contends that Defendants materially breached their obligations under the franchise and license agreements and failed to cure such breaches. As a result, Steak n Shake terminated the agreements.

Steak n Shake alleges that, notwithstanding the termination of the franchise and license agreements, Defendants continue to use the Steak n Shake name and marks in connection with the operation of competitive restaurants at the same locations as their former franchised Steak n Shake restaurants, and to hold their restaurants out to the public as authentic Steak n Shake restaurants.

In the complaint, trademark attorneys for Steak n Shake assert the following:

· Count I – Trademark Infringement

· Count II – Unfair Competition

· Count III – Breach of Contract – Specific Performance

· Count IV – Breach of Contract – Damages

· Count V – Breach of Guaranty – Damages

Steak n Shake seeks the following relief against Defendants, jointly and severally: preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants’ trademark infringement and unfair competition, and ordering Defendants to perform their post-termination obligations under their franchise and license agreements and area development agreement, including their noncompetition covenants; recovery of the amounts owed to them by Defendants, including the damages each has sustained by reason of Defendants’ breaches and the resulting termination of the franchise and license agreements and area development agreement; and an award of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Steak n Shake.

Practice Tip: Franchise agreements typically require the franchisee to cease using all of the franchise marks, as well as return all items bearing the franchise marks, in the event the franchise agreement is terminated. Failure to comply promptly with these provisions can lead to liability for trademark infringement, among other claims.

September 12, 2013

80/20 Sues “John Doe” for Trademark Infringement and Passing Off

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana — Trademark lawyers for 80/20, Inc. of Columbia City, Indiana filed a trademark infringement suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging John Doe d/b/a TNutz of Champlain, New York infringed the trademark “80/20”, Trademark Registration No. 2,699,302, which has been registered with the U.S. Trademark Office.

80/20 is a manufacturer of T-slotted aluminum extrusion products and accessories. It sells to customers through a distribution network and an online “garage sale.” It asserts that it has marketed products and services under the trademark “80/20” since at least 1990. TNutz does business via its own website and an eBay store.

TNutz is accused of unfairly competing with 80/20 by, among other things, falsely representing that some of the products that it offers for sale are genuine 80/20 products when, according to 80/20, they are not. 80/20 indicates that it has no affiliation with TNutz.

The complaint also states that TNutz represents its own goods as 80/20 goods with the intention of causing confusion among, and deceiving, consumers who seek to purchase genuine 80/20 parts from or through 80/20. It also contends that TNutz has purposely hidden its true identity and physical location from consumers and competitors, asserting that the businesses listed as contacts for both TNutz’s website and its physical address are unrelated third parties.

80/20 indicates that it sent a cease-and-desist letter to TNutz on May 10, 2013 demanding that TNutz cease infringement and compensate 80/20 for the damages caused by the allegedly infringing conduct. 80/20 apparently received no response to its demands.

The complaint lists the following causes of action:

· Count I: Trademark Infringement

· Count II: Lanham Act Violation — Passing Off

Trademark lawyers for 80/20 ask the court for preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting infringement; an award of actual damages and profits by TNutz attributable to infringement of 80/20’s trademarks and/or statutory damages; an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, upon a finding that this is an exceptional case; and the destruction of all materials in TNutz’s control bearing the “80/20” mark.

Practice Tip:

If a defendant’s identity is not clear from the evidence available when a complaint is filed, a “John Doe” designation is typically used to represent that unidentified defendant. After filing such a complaint, the plaintiff may then ask the court to use its authority to subpoena various third parties, such as internet service providers, to disclose the identity of the Doe defendant(s). Here, presumably, the plaintiff will subpoena to eBay to discover the identity of “John Doe.”

Although trademark lawsuits with a “John Doe” defendant are a relative rarity, this is the second one we have blogged about this week. Sometimes, as was the case in the other recent trademark complaint with a “John Doe” defendant, revealing the identity of the unknown defendant is largely procedural. In other cases, however, Doe defendants are highly motivated to preserve their anonymity, as they do not want to be associated with the embarrassing allegations in the complaint. See, e.g., one Doe defendant’s request to quash or modify a subpoena in a copyright case which involved the alleged illegal downloading of adult content.

September 6, 2013

Texas Roadhouse Sues Multiple Restaurants Operating as “Texas Corral” or “Amarillo Roadhouse”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Grand Rapids, Michigan — Trademark lawyers for Texas Roadhouse, Inc. and Texas Roadhouse Delaware LLC, both of Louisville, Kentucky (collectively, “Texas Roadhouse”) sued for trademark infringement in the Western District of Michigan alleging that the Defendants, including those doing business as multiple Texas Corral restaurants located in Indiana (collectively “Texas Corral”), as well as one Amarillo Roadhouse restaurant, also located in Indiana, infringed the service mark TEXAS ROADHOUSE, Trademark Registration Nos. 1,833,533; 2,231,309; and 2,250,966, which have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office.

Texas Roadhouse operates a Texas-themed restaurant chain. The first Texas Roadhouse restaurant opened in Clarksville, Indiana in 1993. As of March 2013, there were 397 Texas Roadhouse restaurants in 47 states and three countries.

Texas Roadhouse contends that each of the restaurants is required to comply with strict exterior and interior design requirements so that the look and feel is substantially identical across all Texas Roadhouse locations. It lists three U.S. Service Mark Registrations that include the mark “Texas Roadhouse” and asserts that each of them is incontestable. Texas Roadhouse also claims ownership of various unregistered marks that include the word “Texas” and “Roadhouse” as well as copyright protection, including a U.S. Copyright registration, of its marquee. Finally, Texas Roadhouse claims intellectual-property rights in the trade dress of its restaurants, including the look of the exterior design of the building, the interior décor, the music and the menu.

Texas Corral, against which Texas Roadhouse filed this complaint, also operates casual, western-themed, family restaurants. It owns and operates nine restaurant locations doing business under the name “Texas Corral.” A total of ten locations are at issue in this lawsuit. Six Indiana cities have “Texas Corral” restaurants: Highland, Merrillville, Portage, Michigan City, Martinsville and Shelbyville. Texas Corral also purportedly owns and operates a location that does business as “Amarillo Roadhouse” in Indiana, which is also at issue in this trademark-infringement lawsuit. In addition, three other Texas Corral restaurants have been listed in the complaint: two in Michigan and one in Illinois.

Also listed in the complaint are Paul Switzer, asserted to be the franchisor/licensor of Texas Corral restaurants and Victor Spina, asserted to be a franchisee/licensee. “John Doe Corp.,” a fictitious name intended to represent entities or individuals whose actual identity is not currently known to Texas Roadhouse, is also listed as a Defendant.

In the complaint, trademark attorneys for Texas Roadhouse assert that Texas Corral and Amarillo Roadhouse routinely use trade dress, trademarks, service marks, trade names, designs or logos that are confusingly similar to or copies of intellectual property owned by Texas Roadhouse. This purportedly infringing use is asserted to be visible in signage, print and electronic promotional materials, menus, décor, building design and websites.

Texas Roadhouse’s complaint against Texas Corral and Amarillo Roadhouse lists the following:

· Count I: Trade Dress Infringement

· Count II: Federal Trademark Infringement

· Count III: Trademark Infringement Under Mich. Comp. Laws § 429.42

· Count IV: Trademark Infringement Under Ind. Code § 24-2-1-13

· Count V: Trademark Infringement Under Common Law

· Count VI: Copyright Infringement Under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

· Count VII: Unfair Competition Under Michigan and Indiana Common Law

Texas Roadhouse asks for a judgment that Texas Roadhouse owns enforceable rights in the Texas Roadhouse intellectual property and that all registrations for the Texas Roadhouse intellectual property are valid; a judgment that the Defendants have been and are directly or indirectly infringing the Texas Roadhouse intellectual property; a judgment that the Defendants have been and are engaging in unfair competition by their unauthorized use of the Texas Roadhouse intellectual property; a judgment that Defendants acted deliberately, willfully, intentionally or with malicious intent; an injunction against Defendants prohibiting infringement; damages, including treble damages; a judgment that this case is exceptional and that the Defendants be ordered to pay all of Texas Roadhouse’s attorney fees associated with this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and 17 U.S.C. § 505; and a judgment that the defendants be ordered to pay all costs and expenses incurred by Texas Roadhouse in this action.

Practice Tip:

The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the requirements for trade dress protection in a similar context. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992). At issue in Two Pesos was similar restaurant décor. Taco Cabana had sued rival Two Pesos for copying the look of its restaurant, described as “a festive eating atmosphere having interior dining and patio areas decorated with artifacts, bright colors, paintings and murals. The patio includes interior and exterior areas with the interior patio capable of being sealed off from the outside patio by overhead garage doors. The stepped exterior of the building is a festive and vivid color scheme using top border paint and neon stripes. Bright awnings and umbrellas continue the theme.” The lawsuit alleged that Two Pesos had imitated this scheme and had thereby infringed on Taco Cabana’s trade dress. Among the issues considered was whether trade dress which was inherently distinctive must also be shown to have secondary meaning to be granted protection under the Lanham Act. The Supreme Court held that trade dress which is inherently distinctive is protectable under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act without a showing that it has acquired secondary meaning, since such trade dress itself is capable of identifying products or services as coming from a specific source.

Also at issue in this case, among other matters, will be the eligibility of the words “Texas” and “Roadhouse” for protection under federal and Indiana intellectual-property laws. Under the Lanham Act, a federal law, the holder of a mark may ask the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark on the principal register. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1051, et seq. Marks that are “primarily descriptive” and “primarily geographically descriptive” of the goods or services with which they are associated are not eligible for registration on the principal register unless they have “become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(e), (f). Thus, registration of a descriptive mark on the principal register requires a showing of secondary meaning.

Although the Lanham Act protects both registered and unregistered marks, registration is desirable because it constitutes prima facie evidence of the mark’s validity. See 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1057(b), 1115(a). Thus, federal registration of a mark “‘entitles the plaintiff to a presumption that its registered trademark is not merely descriptive or generic, or, if merely descriptive, is accorded secondary meaning.'” The plaintiff bears the burden, however, of establishing that an unregistered mark is entitled to protection.

The Indiana Trademark Act is similar, and in some respects identical, to the Lanham Act. Although Indiana’s body of trademark law is relatively undeveloped, the General Assembly has specified that the Indiana Trademark Act “is intended to provide a system of state trademark registration and protection that is consistent with the federal system of trademark registration and protection under the Trademark Act of 1946.” Ind. Code Ann. § 24-2-1-0.5. Moreover, “[a] judicial or an administrative interpretation of a provision of the federal Trademark Act may be considered as persuasive authority in construing a provision of the Indiana Trademark Act.

The Indiana Trademark Act’s definitions of “trademark” and “service mark” track the Lanham Act’s definitions of those terms nearly verbatim. See I.C. § 24-2-1-2(8), (9). Like the Lanham Act, the Indiana Trademark Act does not adversely affect common-law trademark rights. See I.C. § 24-2-1-15. Registration of a trademark or service mark with the office of the Indiana Secretary of State provides a registrant with a remedy for the infringement thereof under the Indiana Trademark Act. I.C. § 24-2-1-14(a). Like the Lanham Act, the Indiana Trademark Act prohibits the registration of marks that are “primarily geographically descriptive or deceptively geographically misdescriptive of the goods or services[.]” I.C. § 24-2-1-3. This provision does not, however, prevent the registration of a mark that is used in Indiana by the applicant and has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods or services. In other words, a geographically descriptive mark may be registered under the Indiana Trademark Act if it has acquired secondary meaning.
Continue reading