Unfair Competition

March 24, 2010

Ruemmele Sues Fundex Games for Trademark and Copyright Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Intellectual property attorneys for Jane Ruemmele of Indiana have filed an infringement lawsuit against Fundex Games, Ltd. of Indianapolis, IN.

The plaintiff created a game in which the players place historical events described on cards in chronological order and markets this game under the trademark CHRONOLOGY(R), as registered with the U.S. Trademark Office under Trademark Registration No. 2,044,867. Copyrights in the game have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The defendant acquired the company to whom the plaintiff licensed her game, but the complaint alleges that defendant failed to pay royalties for game sales and continues to sell the game despite the end of the license. Among others, causes of action are brought for breach of the license contract, trademark infringement, counterfeiting, unfair competition, copyright infringement, and trademark dilution.
Continue reading

March 12, 2010

Safe Choice Sued by Batesville Services for Trademark and Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Trademark lawyers for Batesville Services, Inc. of Batesville, IN, filed an infringement suit alleging Safe Choice, Inc. of Charlotte, NC, and the Safe Choice principals are infringing various trademarks for burial caskets, including several which are registered with the U.S. Trademark Office.

The plaintiff is a long-time manufacturer and marketer of caskets and alleges in its complaint that the defendants are using, without approval, Batesville trademarks and related imagery on their Web site to advertise caskets. The complaint also cites the plaintiff’s copyrighted lithographic casket images, as registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and includes claims for copyright infringement as well as trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Continue reading

March 2, 2010

Bettie Page Trust Sues Stockingirl.com for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Intellectual property lawyers for The Bettie Page Trust of Indianapolis, IN, and its administrator Mark A. Roesler, have filed a lawsuit alleging Stockingirl.com of Connecticut and its principal Edward Miccinati are infringing trademarks, copyrights, rights of publicity, and other intellectual property of the late “pin-up” queen Bettie Page.

Defendants are in the business of producing and selling, over the Internet, “women’s leg wear, stockings, and/or lingerie.” The complaint states that the trust has previously entered into license agreements with the defendants, but that the defendants are now, without approval, marketing women’s undergarments under brand names incorporating the word “Bettie.” Trademark infringement, false endorsement, violations of the statutory and common law rights of publicity, and unfair competition are among the causes of action raised.
Continue reading

February 13, 2007

Indiana Court Exterminates RodentPro Trademark Infringement Due to Lack of Jurisdiction From Website Advertising

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, IN – Mice Direct, a Georgia seller for rodents, has achieved dismissal of a trademark infringement suit brought against it in Indiana by its competitor, RodentPro.com, for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Mice Direct and RodentPro.com each sell via the Internet dead / frozen mice and rats, primarily as food, to owners of snakes, reptiles and birds of prey that prefer eating whole carasses. As a result of RodentPro’s lower prices, Mice Direct stated on its website that “We’re Real Rodent Pros!” and that it its mice and rats were “farm raised” and not cheap “laboratory surplus.” In response, RodentPro sued Mice Direct for trademark infringement, unfair competition and trade dress infringement.

Mice Direct moved to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, because it did not sell its rodents in Indiana. RodentPro responded by arguing that jurisdiction was proper per Indianapolis Colts,Inc. v. Metro. Baltimore Football Club Ltd., 34 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 1994) because Mice Direct “directed” its trademark infringing activities at Indiana, the location of the trademark owner. RodentPro also cited Panavision Int’l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998). In that case, Panavision, a California corporation, sued Toeppen, an Illinois resident, for trademark dilution. Toeppen had acquired a domain name in Panavision’s trademark, “Panavision.” Toeppen offered to “settle” the matter if Panavision paid him $13,000. After Panavision refused, Toeppen registered Panavision’s other trademark, “Panaflex,” as a domain name. Panavision later filed suit against Toeppen in California for dilution of its trademarks. The district court held that Toeppen was subject to suit in California under the “effects doctrine.”