Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

October 22, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: PHD Sues DE-STA-CO for Patent Infringement

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for PHD, Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that DE-STA-CO of Auburn Hills, Michigan infringed its patent on the “Long Travel Gripper,” Patent No. 7,490,881, which has been registered by the U.S. Patent Office.

Plaintiff asserts rights acquired via assignment to a patented product called “Long Travel Gripper,” U.S. Patent No. 7,490,881 (the “‘881 Patent”). On April 29, 2014, Defendant was notified that its product “RPR Gladiator Series Gripper” appeared to infringe the ‘881 Patent.

In this Indiana patent litigation, Defendant is accused of infringing the ‘881 Patent as well as inducing infringement by others. Plaintiff contends that the infringing activities have been willful and that this case is exceptional, entitling it to an award of attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff asks the court for a judgment of infringement; damages, including treble damages; a declaration that the case is exceptional and an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to such a finding; and injunctive relief.

Practice Tip: The U.S. Supreme Court expanded upon existing jurisprudence regarding “exceptional” patent lawsuits this year. In two related cases, it held that a trial court may as a matter of its discretion award attorneys’ fees in cases of patent infringement litigation that it deems “exceptional.” These Supreme Court rulings revisiting how “exceptional” is defined may benefit any company that is the target of a questionable patent infringement lawsuit, as trial judges will now have greater latitude to award attorneys’ fees – including awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing defendants – in those cases in which they determine that the conduct of the losing party “stands out from others.”

October 20, 2014

Indiana Cyberpiracy Litigation: Burns Rent-Alls Sues Aays Rent-All and Michael Sharp

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – An Indiana intellectual property attorney for Burns Rent-Alls, Inc. of Mishawaka, Indiana filed a cyberpiracy lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Michael Sharpe and Aays Rent-All Co., Inc., also of Mishawaka, Indiana, had wrongfully registered and used domain names that would result in confusion with the “BURNS RENT-ALLS” common-law trademark.

Burns Rent-Alls is a fifth-generation family-owned firm that has been in business for over 100 years. It offers goods and services throughout northern Indiana and southwest Michigan under the BURNS RENT-ALLS brand including equipment rentals, convention services, event rentals, portable toilet rentals, costume rentals, and tent and canopy rentals.

Aays Rent-All is, according to Plaintiff, in a similar business and provides rentals throughout northern Indiana and southwest Michigan, including equipment rentals, convention services, event rentals, and tent and canopy rentals.

Burns Rent-Alls claims that, by virtue of its “longstanding and continuous use” of the BURNS RENT-ALLS mark, it owns common law trademark rights to that mark for use in connection with Burns Rent-Alls’ goods and services.

Aays Rent-All and Sharpe are accused of registering and using domain names that are confusingly similar to Burns Rent-Alls’ Mark, with a bad-faith intent to profit from their use and registration of those domain names. At issue are: (i) burnspartyrentall.com; (ii) burnspartyrental.com; and (iii) burnsrentall.com. Plaintiff contends that Defendants are using these names to redirect Internet traffic intended for the Burns Rent-Alls’ website to Aays Rent-All’s website. This use, Plaintiff asserts, is likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive consumers into believing that there is an association between Aays Rent-All and Burns Rent-Alls.

Plaintiff also states that it agreed to pay, and did pay, $100 to purchase the burnsrentall.com domain name but that Defendants did not transfer the domain name as allegedly agreed.

In its complaint, Indiana intellectual property counsel for Burns Rent-Alls alleges the following:

Count I: Unfair Competition
Count II: Cyberpiracy
Count III: Breach of Contract

Burns Rent-Alls requests injunctive relief, including the transfer of the domain names at issue; damages, including treble damages; and costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip:

Plaintiff indicates that it attempted to obtain an agreement from Defendants regarding at least one of the domain names at issue prior to filing this lawsuit. Plaintiff contends that, despite this effort, Defendants continued to use the allegedly infringing website names. This lawsuit for unfair competition, cyberpiracy and breach of contract followed.

Another approach available to a plaintiff in such a situation is to seek a transfer of the domain names under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”). This policy was established to resolve “The Trademark Dilemma” inherent in the largely unpoliced sales of domain names — the registration of a trademark without the consent of the trademark owner.

As part of the process of registering a domain name, registrants must, among other things, 1) “represent and warrant” that registering the name “will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party” and 2) agree to have the matter heard as an UDRP proceeding if any third party asserts that the domain name violates its trademark rights.

The UDRP is an administrative procedure. A UDRP limits itself to matters concerning abusive registrations and will not intervene in genuine disputes over trademark rights. To prevail in a UDRP proceeding, for each domain name, the complainant must establish three elements:

The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in “bad faith.”

October 16, 2014

Indiana Trademark Litigation: NextEra Sues Nextra for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – A trademark attorney for NextEra Energy, Inc. of Juno Beach, Florida filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana. Defendant Nextra Technologies, LLC of Granger, Indiana is accused of infringing one or more of NextEra’s 132 federally registered trademarks. Nextra is also accused of unfair competition and false advertising.

NextEra is a clean-energy company. It has approximately 42,500 megawatts of generating capacity in 26 states in the United States and four provinces in Canada. Through its affiliates, it provides wind and solar energy goods and services. Its wind-energy services include consulting, developing, construction and installation of wind energy systems, including wind-powered energy-generating turbines and turbine transformers. Its solar-energy systems include solar panels, solar arrays, solar photovoltaic equipment, solar thermal equipment and transformers.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Nextra is in a similar business and that it has manufactured, imported, promoted, distributed and/or sold energy products and services – including wind turbine components, solar panels, and energy systems – in the United States. Plaintiff further contends that Nextra’s goods and services are offered under “Nextra” mark and that the “Nextra” mark infringes upon NextEra’s “NextEra” family of trademarks.

Due to the alleged similarity between the types of goods and/or services offered by the two companies and the marks under which they are offered, NextEra claims that Nextra’s sales of energy products and services is likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception among purchasers as to the existence of a relationship between NextEra and Nextra.

In its complaint, filed by a trademark lawyer for NextEra, the following claims are made:

• Federal Trademark Infringement,

• Federal Unfair Competition, and

• Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition.

NextEra seeks injunctive relief and damages, including punitive damages, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: A finding of trademark infringement requires a “likelihood of confusion.” There are seven factors relevant to the likelihood-of-confusion analysis: (1) the similarity between the plaintiff’s mark and the allegedly infringing mark in appearance and suggestion; (2) actual confusion; (3) the similarity between the products and services offered by the plaintiff and defendant; (4) the area and manner of use; (5) the degree of care likely to be exercised by consumers; (6) the strength of the plaintiff’s mark; and (7) the defendant’s intent.

October 15, 2014

Indiana Copyright and Trademark Litigation: Edible Arrangements Sues Edible Creations and Owner

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Edible Arrangements, LLC (“EA”) and Edible Arrangements International, LLC (“EAI”) of Wallingford, Connecticut filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark and copyright infringement by Tom Drummond and Edible Creations, LLC (“EC”) of Allen County, Indiana. Defendants are accused of infringing several trademarks (below), which have been issued by the U.S. Trademark Office, as well as a copyrighted work.

Since 1998, EAI has been using the phrase “Edible Arrangements,” together with various related design marks, in connection with various food products. Its products include fruit cut to look like flowers as well as other fruit products. EAI operates a franchise network of over 1,200 independent owner-operated franchise locations throughout the United States and internationally. It sublicenses the trademarks at issue in this Indiana litigation to its franchisees.

The other Plaintiff, EA, owns the following trademarks relating to “Edible” and “Edible Arrangements”:

In August 2013, Defendants Edible Creations and the company’s owner, Tom Drummond, Filed an application for what Plaintiffs content is a mark that is confusingly similar to one or more of EA’s trademarks:

In September 2013, Plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that Edible Creations cease using the mark. It later filed an opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) challenging the registration on the grounds of deceptiveness, false suggestion of a connection between Edible Creations and EA, likelihood of confusion, dilution, misdescriptiveness and fraud. Edible Creations did not respond to EA’s opposition and the TTAB entered a default against Edible Creations and refused to register Edible Creations’ mark.In August 2013, Defendants Edible Creations and the company’s owner, Tom Drummond, filed an application for what Plaintiffs contend is a mark that is confusingly similar to one or more of EA’s trademarks:

In this lawsuit, Defendants have been accused of continuing to advertise, promote and sell fruit arrangements in Indiana using the phrase “Edible Creations” and “Edible Creations Creator of Edible Floral Arrangements.” They have also been accused of violating EA’s copyright in a sculpture known as the “Hearts and Berries Fruit Design” by displaying the copyrighted design in print, including on vehicles, and on the internet.

In its complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark and copyright lawyer, Plaintiffs list the following claims:

Trademark Infringement
False Designation of Origin
Trademark Dilution

By Blurring
By Tarnishment
Copyright Infringement
Unfair Competition
Unfair Competition

Plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Practice Tip:

Allegations of trademark dilution involve a different analysis from claims of trademark infringement. The first type of trademark dilution is dilution by blurring. An allegation of dilution by blurring requires that the plaintiff prove, among other things, that its mark is “famous.” This is not an easy burden, requiring that the mark have “extensive public recognition and renown” within the population of average consumers. There are some marks, such as Chanel, Coke and Microsoft, for which establishing such renown is likely achievable. However, this bar is extremely high. Even trademarks that are very well known, such as Coach, which has been used since 1961 and under which several billion dollars of sales are made annually, have been found to be “not famous” for the purposes of a dilution analysis. Edible Arrangements will have a difficult time proving this claim.

The second type of trademark dilution is dilution by tarnishment. Edible Arrangements will also have a difficult time establishing the elements of this type of trademark dilution. This cause of action is generally brought when the reputation of a well-known mark is harmed by another’s use of that trademark or a similar mark within a sexual context. For example, in Kraft Foods Holdings, Inc. v. Helm, 205 F. Supp. 2d 942, 949-50 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court held that the use of the term “VelVeeda” by a pornographic website tarnished the trademark held by the makers of Velveeta cheese. Courts may also find dilution by tarnishment where a defendant offers inferior products or services. It is unclear that Plaintiffs here have alleged facts sufficient to support a claim of tarnishment.

October 13, 2014

Indiana Teen Indicted for Theft of Intellectual Property Valued More Than $100 Million

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

District of Delaware – Four members of an international computer hacking ring were

indicted for stealing gaming technology and Apache helicopter training software. Two have already pled guilty.

Four members of an international computer hacking ring have been charged with breaking into computer networks of prominent technology companies and the U.S. Army and stealing more than $100 million in intellectual property and other proprietary data. Two of the charged members have already pleaded guilty. The alleged cyber theft included software and data related to the Xbox One gaming console and the Xbox Live online gaming system; popular games such as “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3” and “Gears of War 3”; and proprietary software used to train military helicopter pilots.

October 10, 2014

Trademark Update: eTAS Enhancements

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The following improvements were made by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to the Electronic Trademark Assignment System (“eTAS”) during fiscal year 2014. These enhancements are designed to facilitate filing and recording assignments with the Assignment Recordation Branch.

NEW CONVEYANCE TYPES: Added three new Conveyance Types to improve database specificity and reduce the need to file two documents in the case of a merger involving a name change:

Merger and Change of Name” allows customers to select both conveyance types in a single submission
Entity Conversion
Court Order

ORDER OF RECORDATION: Added a method for customers to designate the order of recordation for multiple, related assignment submissions.

PHONE COMMUNICATION: Introduced new service in which the USPTO will contact customers by phone: (1) to resolve recordation issues rather than issuing a Non-Recordation Notice, and (2) to help identify potential typographical errors that might result in the filer having to file a subsequent corrective assignment.

ELECTRONIC RESUBMISSION: Added electronic resubmission capability allowing customers who receive a Non-Recordation Notice to resubmit the corrected paperwork electronically.

COUNTRY CODES: Updated and reordered country codes in the eTAS (1) to be consistent with other USPTO systems such as the Trademark Electronic Application System and (2) to enable the USPTO to add and delete countries from the list.

SPECIAL CHARACTERS: Added the ability for customers to enter special characters in the name fields in eTAS. For example, customers may now enter a corporation called XYZ*, Inc. as a name.

NOTICE DELIVERY: Instituted delivery of recordation notices via three methods in succession: (1) first attempt is via email, (2) if email is unsuccessful, then send via fax and, (3) if fax is unsuccessful, then send via postal mail.

VERIFICATION: Added a statement to the validation page requiring a filer to verify that he/she is aware that the unauthorized use of eTAS is a misrepresentation to the federal government, is prohibited and is subject to criminal and civil penalties. This change was made in an attempt to prevent the filing of false transfers against another’s property.

October 9, 2014

USPTO Seeks Public Input Regarding Cybersecurity

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The facts are alarming: the cybersecurity threat to the U.S. – and the world – is real and growing. The Economist Magazine reported early this year that one security firm estimated that cybercrime costs the world $113 billion per year and affects 378 million people, while a research institute estimated that malicious cyber-attacks in 2012 cost U.S. companies $277 for each customer’s or user’s account put at risk.

To combat the threat, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) have teamed up to explore viable cybersecurity solutions and are asking for help from the public.

NIST’s Request for Information is accessible at: https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-20315. The 45-day comment period ends October 10, 2014. All RFI responses should be submitted to cyberframework@nist.gov and will be posted on NIST’s website.

October 8, 2014

185 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in September 2014

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 185 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in September 2014 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Reg. Number	Word Mark	Click To View
4596040	ESG SECURITY	VIEW
4611624	AROUND THE CLOCK SPORTS TALK	VIEW
4609858	EVERY CONTACT MATTERS	VIEW
4609713	CENTERFIRST	VIEW
4609559	GOD ROCKS	VIEW
4609463	LEAF	VIEW
4609273	REAL PURITY	VIEW
4609053	GRAND DESIGN	VIEW
4608998	B. HAPPY PEANUT BUTTER	VIEW
4608976	OMNI HEALTH AND FITNESS	VIEW
4608873	SPRINGBUK	VIEW
4608870	THE POWER OF BEST	VIEW
4608869	STORYTIME SERIES	VIEW
4608863	PENTREXFLU	VIEW

October 6, 2014

Patent Office Issues 219 Patents To Indiana Citizens in September 2014

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 219 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in September2014, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

PAT. NO.		TITLE
8849728		Visual analytics law enforcement tools
8849673		Rule generation
8849459		Power management system for a handheld medical device
8849458		Collection device with selective display of test results, method and computer program product thereof
8849439		Mass production of orthopedic implants
8847756		Bed status indicators
8847446		Method and apparatus for fastening cooling fans to electro-mechanical machines
8847114		Laser-assisted micromachining system and method
8847030		Inbred corn line XHK20
8846717		Stable insecticide compositions and methods for producing same
8846570		Herbicidal compositions comprising 4-amino-3-chloro-5-fluoro-6-(4-chloro-2-fluoro-3-methoxyphenyl)pyridine-2- -carboxylic acid or a derivative thereof and microtubule inhibiting herbicides
8846231		Battery assembly with temperature control device
8846132		Method for producing polymer layers
8846068		Methods and compositions for treating post-operative pain comprising a local anesthetic
8846059		Extracellular matrix adjuvant and methods for prevention and/or inhibition of ovarian tumors and ovarian cancer
8845772		Process and system for syngas production from biomass materials
8845749		Modular orthopaedic component case
8845744		Ulnar head implant

October 3, 2014

If You Have Been Sued for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

How does a patent infringement lawsuit begin?

A patent lawsuit begins with the filing of a complaint alleging patent infringement by the patent

holder. If a lawsuit is filed against you, the patent owner must serve two documents on you: (1) a document called a “complaint,” which explains the accusations made against you; and (2) a document called a “summons.” The patent owner may first send a “demand” letter that states that you are potentially infringing the claims of a patent and requests that you pay for a license to use the patented invention, or it may go straight to court.