Indiana Intellectual Property Law News
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Inspire Commerce, Inc. (“Inspire”) of Boulder County, Colorado, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, enVista, LLC, enVista Interactive
Solutions, LLC d/b/a Enspire Commerce, and RetailPoint II, LLC d/b/a RetailPoint, all of Carmel, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration Number 4,344,942. Plaintiff is seeking damages, injunctive relief, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Inspire provides services and products related to financial transaction processing for both storefronts and online retail stores. As early as April 24, 2008, Inspire began using its INSPIRE COMMERCE mark (the “Registered Mark”) for their financial transaction services and products. Plaintiff filed for registration with the USPTO for the Registered Mark on October 27, 2010, and was issued a Certificate of Registration for it on June 4, 2013. Inspire filed a Combined Declaration of Use and Incontestability with the USPTO on July 27, 2018. The USPTO accepted and acknowledged the Combined Declaration on August 4, 2018.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants began using their assumed name “ENSPIRE COMMERCE” on or about October 30, 2013. Defendant Interactive Solutions filed a Certificate of Assumed Business Name for Enspire Commerce on or about May 23, 2014. Inspire claims Defendants began using Enspire Commerce in connection with their system for managing transactions, processing, and payments for merchants and retailers. After April 19, 2018, the Interactive Solutions and RetailPoint social media pages were both taken down, their websites were removed, and their domain names began forwarding to an enVista website.
Inspire claims that Interactive Solutions’ service mark registration for their assumed name is invalid because they omitted the fact that their mark would be used in connection with “eCommerce/internet payment transactions and storefront and retail payment systems” during the registration process. In fact, the USPTO issued a Notice of Pseudo Mark to Interactive Solutions on April 17, 2014 referencing the Registered Mark belonging to Inspire. Plaintiff believes the USPTO would not have registered the service mark due to a likelihood of confusion if they had all relevant information.
Plaintiff is claiming trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1141(1) and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) against all Defendants. Next, it is claiming contributory trademark infringement against enVista, LLC. Inspire’s final claim is for cancellation of the Enspire Commerce mark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1119 because it is so similar to Inspire’s mark and it has led to actual confusion.
The case was assigned to District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson and Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman in the Southern District and assigned Case 1:18-cv-03807-JMS-MPB.