License

November 23, 2020

Joe Hand Files Another Copyright Infringement and Piracy Lawsuit

Indianapolis, New Albany Division, Indiana – Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“Joe Hand’), the Plaintiff, claims to specialize in licensing premier sporting events to commercial establishments including bars, restaurants, and other similar locations. Those premier sporting events apparently included the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. vs. Conor McGregor boxing match on August 26, 2017 (the “Program”) that was purportedly registered under U.S. Copyright No. PA 2-006-333. According to the Complaint, Defendants, Lena Marie Smith and Main Street Bar N Grill, LLC (“Defendants”), avoided paying the proper commercial licensing fees and publicly exhibited the Program at their establishment.

This case is extremely similar to the numerous lawsuits Joe Hand has filed previously. Like most of those cases, Joe Hand is seeking damages for satellite piracy (47 U.S.C. § 605), cable piracy (47 U.S.C. § 553), and copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 505).

June 11, 2019

Supreme Court Issues Decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. (“Mission”) versus Tempnology, LLC. The original case involved a trademark licensing agreement and whether the Tempnology’s rejection of the agreement during its bankruptcy deprived Mission’s right to use the trademark under the agreement. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion.

Tempnology utilized the brand name “Coolcore” for its manufactured clothing designed to stay cool during exercise. Mission and Tempnology entered into a non-exclusive licensing agreement for Mission to use the Coolcore trademarks anywhere in the world in 2012. While the agreement would have expired in July 2016, Tempnology filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September 2015. Soon after, Tempnology asked for permission to “reject” the licensing agreement it had with Mission under Section 365(a). 11 U.S.C. § 365(a). Pursuant to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor may reject any contract that neither party has finished performing. That rejection under Section 365 “constitutes a breach of such contract.” 11 U.S.C. § 365(a).

Both parties agreed that Mission has a claim for damages against Tempnology, however, under 365(g), Mission would be in the same boat as an unsecured creditor and would likely not receive its total damages. Tempnology also believed by rejecting the licensing agreement, Mission would no longer be able to utilize the Coolcore trademarks.

March 27, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Parties Return to Court Over Allegations of Ongoing Infringement of Patent for Foldable Tricycle

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Newton Enterprises Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong Kong filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant Singleton Trading Inc. d/b/a Elama d/b/a Blue Spotlight of Brooklyn, New York asserting patent infringement and breach of contract.

These claims follow earlier litigation against Singleton initiated by Newton in June 2016. That lawsuit, also filed in Indiana, alleged that Singleton Trading had infringed and/or induced others to infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,568,720 (the “‘720 patent”) for a “Wheeled Vehicle” with its “Zoom Bike” product.

Newton states that the 2016 action was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement under which Singleton agreed to compensate Newton for its claims of past infringement and “permanently cease making, using, offering to sell, or selling the Zoom Bike” or any other product that infringed the ‘720 patent. Under the agreement, Singleton was granted a limited license to sell its remaining inventory.

Newton now returns to the court alleging that Singleton has breached the settlement agreement by selling units of the Zoom Bike exceeding the scope of the limited license. Newton further contends that this conduct constitutes willful infringement of the ‘720 patent.

This second complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, lists two counts:

Count I: Infringement of ‘720 Patent
Count II: Breach of Settlement Agreement

Newton asks the court for a declaration of willful patent infringement; damages, including a trebling of those damages; costs and attorneys’ fees; and injunctive relief.

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.:

December 30, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Super 8 Sues Former Franchisees for Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. f/k/a Super 8 Motels, Inc. of Parsippany, New Jersey sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement and other wrongdoings.

Plaintiff Super 8 operates a franchise system for guest lodging. It claims ownership to the SUPER 8® service mark as well as various related trade names, trademarks and service marks, some of which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It estimates the value of the entity’s goodwill to exceed hundreds of millions of dollars.

In this Indiana intellectual property lawsuit, Super 8 alleges that former franchisees have violated the terms of a franchise agreement entered into with Super 8. Three Indianapolis Defendants were listed: Auburn Lodging Associates, LLP (“ALA”), Kokila Patel and Dilip Patel. A fourth Defendant Chicago Capital Holdings, LLC (“CCH”) of Hinsdale, Illinois was also named.

December 19, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Founding Member of Museum Registers Trademark Under His Own Name, Sues Museum for Use

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – Richard Litov of Evansville, Indiana sued Freedom Heritage Museum, Inc., of Evansville, Indiana alleging trademark infringement. Litov asserts claims under both federal and Indiana law.

Litov claims that he conceived the idea for the museum – a collection of exhibits and artifacts from the World War II era – as well as the museum’s name, stating that he served as its founding president and a founding board member. He asserts that the museum used the trademarked name pursuant to permission that he granted “as president and board member” of the museum.

The trademark in question has been registered under Litov’s name as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,939,292. Litov states in his complaint that the registration covers the words FREEDOM HERITAGE MUSEUM and an associated design. The word portion of the trademark, as listed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s website, is FREEDOM HERITAGE MUSEUM, EST. 2012, EVANSVILLE INDIANA. The application for the trademark registration was filed on July 6, 2015 and granted on April 19, 2016.

November 11, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Hoosier Daddy’s Bar & Grill Accused of Copyright Infringement for Playing Jessie’s Girl and Other Songs

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – A copyright litigator for Plaintiffs Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”) of New York, New York, as well as Sony/ATV Songs LLC d/b/a Sony/ATV Tree Publishing, Chinquapin Music, Boy Rocking Music, Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp., Del Sound Music, and Universal – Songs of Polygram International, Inc., brought a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana asserting copyright infringement.

Plaintiff BMI is a licensor of approximately 10.5 million copyrighted musical compositions. The remaining Plaintiffs own the copyrights to the musical compositions that are at issue in this Indiana lawsuit.

Defendants are Hoosier Daddy’s NCIN, LLC d/b/a Hoosier Daddy’s Bar & Grill and its president, Jeff Burchett of New Castle, Indiana. Plaintiffs state that Burchett is responsible for the operation and management of the business entity and the restaurant.

September 8, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Airbrushing Firm Sues Boat Seller for Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Copyright lawyers for Plaintiff The Art of Design, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana. Defendants in this Indiana lawsuit are Pontoon Boat, LLC d/b/a Bennington and Bennington Marine of Elkhart, Indiana and Hawkeye Boat Sales, Inc. of Dubuque, Iowa.

Plaintiff is in the business of custom airbrushing, including the airbrushing of copyrighted art works onto different surfaces. Defendants offer marine goods, including pontoon boats. In 2011, Plaintiff and Bennington entered into an agreement wherein Bennington paid Plaintiff to apply copyrighted graphics, titled “Shatter Graphics,” to a limited number of Bennington’s pontoon boats in exchange for payment.

Plaintiff contends that, following this authorized application of Shatter Graphics to Defendants’ pontoon boats, Defendant made further use of the copyrighted design without Plaintiff’s authorization.

In this Indiana litigation, Plaintiff makes several allegations, including accusing Defendant of copyright infringement for the sale of pontoon boats bearing graphics “that are copied from and substantially similar to” Plaintiff’s Shatter Graphics, which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration numbers VA 1-979-388 and 1-982-002. The lawsuit lists the following claims for relief:

• Count I – Breach of Contract against Bennington
• Count II – Unjust Enrichment against all Defendants
• Count III – Copyright Infringement against all Defendants
• Count IV – Unfair Competition against all Defendants
• Count V – Inducing Copyright Infringement against Bennington

• Count VI – Violations of DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1202

Plaintiff is seeking damages, including treble damages, as well as equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Plaintiff’s copyright attorneys also represent frequent litigant Design Basics. We have blogged about Design Basics’ Indiana copyright litigation before. See:

• Design Basics Sues Fort Wayne Homebuilders
• Creator of Architectural Designs Files Two New Copyright Lawsuits
• Design Basics Files Three New Indiana Copyright Lawsuits
• Architecture Firms File Four New Infringement Lawsuits
• Design Basics Files Two New Copyright Lawsuits
• Architecture Firm Files New Lawsuit Asserting Infringement
• Design Basics Files Two Additional Infringement Lawsuits in the Northern District
• Design Basics Files Additional Indiana Lawsuit

• Design Basics Sues Builders and Others Alleging Infringement of Copyrighted Architectural Designs

August 8, 2016

Indiana Cable/Satellite Litigation: Dish Network Accuses Indiana Pair of Pirating Satellite Signal

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Northern District of Indiana – Plaintiffs DISH Network LLC, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. and NagraStar LLC, all of Englewood, Colorado, sued in the Northern District of Indiana contending that Defendants Paulette Kincaide and Linnis Kincaide of Gary, Indiana wrongfully intercepted satellite signals.

Defendants are accused of circumventing DISH Network’s security system and receiving copyrighted satellite programming without having paid the required subscription fee. Plaintiffs contend that this was accomplished by purchasing decryption keys from NFusion Private Server, a pirate television service.

In this Indiana lawsuit, filed by intellectual property lawyers for Plaintiffs, the following causes of action are alleged:

• Count I: Circumventing An Access Control Measure In Violation Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(l)
• Count II: Receiving Satellite Signals Without Authorization in Violation of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a)

• Count III: Intercepting Satellite Signals in Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a) and 2520

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ actions have caused “actual and imminent irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.” They further contend that violations were willful and for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

Plaintiffs ask the federal court for an award of damages, including enhanced damages, as well as injunctive relief and reimbursement of costs, investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees.

August 4, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Interactive Alleges Patent Misuse, Sues Patent Licensor

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Plaintiff Interactive Intelligence, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant Avaya, Inc. of Santa Clara, California. At issue in this litigation is the proper scope of a patent licensing agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant.

In 2002, Interactive and Avaya agreed to license patents covering Avaya’s “call center” products. In exchange for this license, Interactive agreed to pay Avaya a royalty based upon Interactive’s sales. The patents-in-suit, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are as follows: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,802,058; 5,982,873; 6,009,386; 6,052,460; 6,173,399; 6,192,050; 6,208,970; 6,389,132; 6,392,666; 6,535,601; 6,560,330; 6,636,598; 6,665,395; 6,754,331; 6,850,602; 6,925,166; 7,023,980; 7,215,760; 7,542,558; 7,685,102; 7,702,083; 7,990,899; 8,107,401; 8,379,819; 8,897,428; 9,049,291; and 9,154,629.

In this federal complaint, filed by Indiana patent lawyers, Interactive states that, since 2002, its revenue has expanded to include many sources other than call center software, including “hardware resales, software maintenance and support, training, [and] subscription services for cloud based hosting.” It also contends that a “sizeable portion” of its revenue now comes from business outside of the United States.

Interactive claims that Avaya has misused its patents and misconstrued the agreement to require Interactive to pay royalties based on Interactive’s “global sales.” It argues that sales that are outside of the scope of Avaya’s patents, as well as at least some of its foreign sales, should not be subject to a royalty under the agreement. Interactive further asserts that Avaya’s “threats of potential patent infringement litigation resulted in Interactive paying significantly more than $1,000,000 in excess payments” under the agreement.

This lawsuit seeks a declaration of patent misuse by Avaya, as well as a declaration that Interactive does not infringe any of the patents asserted by Avaya. Interactive also seeks restitution and/or damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.