Unfair Competition

March 21, 2018

Italian-Based Luxury Eyewear Manufacturer Files Suit Against Indiana Businesses Alleging Infringement of Rayban Trademark

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Luxottica Group S.p.A of Mason, Ohio and Oakley, Inc., of Foothill Ranch, California filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Avni Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Delaware BP of Osgood, Indiana, Pari, Inc. d/b/a Batesville Food Mart of Batesville, Indiana, Rani Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Batesville Shell, and Sai Petroleum Inc. d/b/a New Point Food Mart of New Point, Indiana infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration Nos. 650,499, 1,093,658, 1,726,955, 1,080,886, 1,490,305, 2,718,485, 1,320,460, and 3,522,603 all with the Owner of Luxottica Group S.p.A. Oakley, Inc., is the owner of Trademark Registration Nos. 1,521,599, 1,984,501, 1,990,262, 3,331,124, and 3,365,728. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Luxottica is an Italian-based corporation that manufacturers and sells luxury eyewear under the “Ray-Ban” trademark. Oakley is a subsidiary of Luxottica that also produces high-end eyewear under the “Oakley” name.

March 19, 2018

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Dismissal of Claims against Subaru of America

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Marilyn D. Mintz of Northern California, had filed a Trademark infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California alleging that Subaru of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation with place of Business in the State of New Jersey, infringed a phrase and design trademarked by Plaintiff.

Defendant Subaru, which has a large manufacturing presence in Lafayette, Indiana, ran an ad campaign with the slogan “Share the Love.” Plaintiff alleged that this infringed her trademarked phrase, “A World of Love, for You and Those You Love.” In the ad campaign, Plaintiff also used a graphic design showing a hand with a heart on it. Plaintiff alleged that this infringed a similar design she trademarked.

February 28, 2018

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Klipsch Sues Audiosurplus on Basis of Trademark Infringment

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Klipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Audiosurplus, infringed its rights in United States Trademark Nos. 978,949, 2,917,215, and 3,863,511. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, Audiosurplus’s profits and damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiff is an Indiana-based audio equipment company that manufactures high-end speakers, headphones, subwoofers, and a variety of other items audio items. Defendant is an online retailer that sells audio equipment on Amazon. The three trademarks involved in this case are for the “KLIPSCH” brand name. Plaintiff sells its products across the country through contractually authorized retailers. Plaintiff is suing because Defendant is not an authorized Klipsch retailer, but has allegedly been selling Klipsch products through its online store without permission.

April 10, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: IHOP and Applebee’s Sued on Allegations of Infringement of Splenda Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Heartland Consumer Products LLC and TC Heartland LLC, of Carmel, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, dilution and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, the Indiana State Trademark Act, and the common law of the State of Indiana.

At issue are trademarks covering Splenda®-brand sweetener, which has been approved for use in over 80 countries and used in more than 4000 products globally. In this Indiana litigation, Heartland claims that some or all of the following trademarks have been infringed: 1544079, 3346910; 4172135, 4165028, 4301712, 4172136, 4165029,4122311, 4187229, 4202774, 4230392, 4238101, 4106164, 4664653, and 4744600. These trademarks have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, Heartland claims ownership of the following pending applications for United States Trademark Registration Serial Nos. 86865337, 87012521, and 87010504.

Defendants in the lawsuit are DineEquity, Inc., Applebee’s Franchisor LLC, Applebee’s Restaurants LLC, Applebee’s Services, Inc., International House of Pancakes, LLC f/k/a International House of Pancakes, Inc., IHOP Franchising LLC, IHOP Franchise Company, LLC and IHOP Franchisor LLC. Plaintiff asserts that all Defendants have a principal place of business in Glendale, California. They are accused of leading customers to believe that they offer Splenda-brand sweetener when they do not. Plaintiff contends that instead of American-made Splenda, the product offered to the customers is, in fact, “a lower-quality product of China.”

Indiana trademark attorneys for Heartland sued in federal court. They assert:

Count I: Common Law Trademark Infringement and Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
Count II: False Designation of Origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
Count III: Unfair Competition
Count IV: Trademark Dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
Count V: Trademark Dilution under I.C. 24-2-1-13.5
Count VII [sic]: Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
Count VIII: Corrective Advertising Damages

Plaintiff asks the court for injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. They also seek various types of damages, including actual, statutory, punitive and treble damages.

March 24, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Bosch Accuses Indiana Man of Counterfeiting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Robert Bosch, GmbH of Stuttgart, Germany and Robert Bosch, LLC of Broadview, Illinois sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false advertising and unfair competition.

At issue in this Indiana lawsuit are the following trademarks, which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:

MARK

REG. NO

REG. DATE

BOSCH

1,637,401

Mar. 12, 1991

633,563

Aug. 28, 1956

Defendants in the litigation are Joshua Rayner of Portage, Indiana as well as ten unnamed “Doe” Defendants. They are accused of “advertising, offering for sale and sale of counterfeit automotive parts” that bear unauthorized copies of Bosch trademarks.
Indiana trademark attorneys for Plaintiffs list the following claims in this federal lawsuit:

Count I: Trademark Counterfeiting in Violation of Sections 32 and 34(d)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act
Count II: Trademark Infringement in Violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act
Count III: Unfair Competition in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
Count IV: False Advertising in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief, including statutory damages, treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

March 10, 2017

Indiana Trademark Law: Court Rules for Winnebago on Trade Dress Claims

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. of the Northern District of Indiana dismissed claims concerning trade dress infringement.

In this Indiana trademark lawsuit, Forest River, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana sued Winnebago Industries, Inc. of Forest City, Iowa and its subsidiary Winnebago of Indiana, LLC alleging trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and false and misleading representations.

Overhauser Law Offices, LLC filed a partial motion to dismiss with the court, arguing that Forest River had neither sufficiently identified the features that constituted the claimed trade dress nor provided any factual support for its assertion that such features were non-functional.

The court noted that “to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. The claim is deemed plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

In this litigation, such a showing required that Forest River define its trade dress. It must also plead sufficient facts to show that the claimed trade dress is nonfunctional, has acquired secondary meaning and that a likelihood of confusion exists between its trade dress and Winnebago’s trade dress.

The court agreed with Winnebago, concluding that Plaintiff had relied on “conclusory and meaningless” assertions in its pleadings. Consequently, it granted Winnebago’s motion and dismissed without prejudice Forest River’s claims concerning trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) as well as similar claims made under common law.

Overhauser Law Offices represented Winnebago in obtaining this successful order dismissing the trade dress claims.

March 9, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Trademark Dispute over “Final Four” and “March Madness” Heads to Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) of Indianapolis, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition.

NCAA’s trademarks, which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office (“USPTO”), pertain to the following uses of FINAL FOUR and MARCH MADNESS:

MARK	GOODS/SERVICES	REG NO. & DATE
FINAL FOUR	Association services, namely, conducting annual basketball tournaments at the college level	1,488,836; May 17, 1988
FINAL FOUR	Promoting the goods and services of others by allowing sponsors to affiliate their goods and services with collegiate championship tournaments	2,377,720; Aug. 15, 2000
FINAL FOUR	Printed matter, namely, guides in the field of sports; Luggage, namely, portfolios, backpacks, duffle bags, rolling luggage, garment bags, briefcases, athletic bags and tote bags; and Entertainment services, Namely, providing information in the field of college sports via the Internet	2,964,266; June 28, 2006
MARCH MADNESS	Entertainment services, namely, presentation of athletic and entertainment personalities in a panel forum	1,571,340; Dec. 12, 1989
MARCH MADNESS	Entertainment in the nature of basketball tournaments between college teams	2,485,443; Sept. 4, 2001
MARCH MADNESS	Telecommunications services; namely the transmission of voice, data, images, audio, video and information via local and long distance telephone, satellite and global computer networks; leasing telecommunications equipment, components, systems and supplies; electronic mail services; telephone voice messaging services; providing multiple-user access to global computer networks to transmit, receive and otherwise access and use information of general interest to consumers; web casting of athletic games, tournaments, exhibitions, and events via the Internet	3,025,527; Dec. 13, 2005

Defendants in this Indiana trademark lawsuit are Kizzang LLC of Las Vegas, Nevada and Robert Alexander, the founder and owner of the business. They are in the business of providing nationwide Internet-based promotions that award prizes for predicting the results of sporting events. Plaintiff states that they have branded their NCAA-related services using the mark FINAL 3.

Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants had planned to adopt APRIL MADNESS for the same services as FINAL 3, but that they delayed doing so upon learning that NCAA objected to their use of FINAL 3. Kizzang has applied for federal trademark registrations for both marks with the USPTO.

Indiana trademark attorneys for Plaintiff contend that Defendants adopted both names because of their similarity to the marks used by NCAA and that Defendants did so with the intention of exploiting the goodwill associated with FINAL FOUR and MARCH MADNESS. In this lawsuit, filed in federal court, the following claims are made:

Trademark Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114
Trademark Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
Trademark Dilution Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Common Law Unfair Competition

Plaintiff asks for various remedies from the court, including a judgment of willful and intentional violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125 and Indiana common law; injunctive relief including restraining Defendants from further use of FINAL 3 and APRIL MADNESS as well as an order that the USPTO deny registration for the marks; damages, including treble damages; and attorneys’ fees.

March 1, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Choice Hotels Alleges Former Franchisee is Infringing Econo Lodge Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Lafayette, Indiana – Choice Hotels International, Inc. of Rockville, Maryland sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement under federal and Indiana law.

Choice Hotels is in the business of franchising hotels. It offers hotel and motel services under the following brands: CAMBRIA HOTELS & SUITES®, COMFORT INN®, COMFORT SUITES®, QUALITY®, SLEEP IN®, CLARION®, MAINSTAY SUITES®, SUBURBAN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL®, ECONO LODGE®, and RODEWAY INN®.

At issue in this Indiana trademark litigation is the Econo Lodge family of trademarks. These trademarks include U.S. Trademark Nos.:

February 21, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Vendors of Tanning Products in Dispute over “Beachin’ Life” Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Australian Gold, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana sued in the Southern District alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Plaintiff Australian Gold, which manufactures, distributes and sells tanning preparations, claims ownership to U.S. Federal Trademark Registration No. 5,130,366 for BEACHIN’ LIFE. It states that it has used this trademark since “at least 2016”; the trademark was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on January 24, 2017.

Defendant in this Indiana lawsuit is Devoted Creations, Inc. d/b/a Ed Hardy Tanning of Oldsmar, Florida. Devoted Creations has introduced and is selling a #BEACHLIFE tanning preparation for the indoor tanning market.

February 17, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Trademark Dispute Between Two Veterans’ Museums Heads to Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – Henager Family Museum, Inc d/b/a National Veterans Memorial of Buckskin, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement.

Plaintiff operates a military memorial in Indiana under the trademark “NATIONAL VETERANS MEMORIAL,” U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,420,974. That trademark was filed “in connection with promoting public awareness of the need for reconciliation and recognition by all veterans” and was issued on April 29, 2008 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In this Indiana litigation, Henager states that Columbus Downtown Development Corp. (“CDDC”) of Columbus, Ohio is currently developing a museum, scheduled to open in 2018, to be operated under the name “NATIONAL VETERANS MEMORIAL & MUSEUM.” Henager states that CDDC’s use of this name in a state adjoining Indiana, and in conjunction with the offering of the same type of services, is likely to cause confusion or deceive consumers. It also contends that CDDC’s use of the purportedly similar name has resulted in CDDC being unjustly enriched at Henager’s expense.