Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

October 6, 2011

Southern District of Indiana Denies John Doe’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Seeking to Reveal the Identity of an IP Address That Allegedly Downloaded Adult Video in Copyright Infringement Suit

New Albany, IN – Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann of the Southern District of Indiana has denied a Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Defendant Doe No. 2 in First Time Video v. Indiana John Does 1-18. A copyright infringement attorney had filed a motion to quash subpoena on behalf of John Doe Number 2. Copyright lawyers for First Time Video did not know the names and addresses of the person who allegedly committed copyright infringement by downloading adult videos and had named 18 “John Does” when the suit was filed. First Time Video then served subpoenas on the internet service providers seeking the names and addresses of certain IP addresses which were alleged to have downloaded the copyrighted works. John Doe 2’s copyright attorney argued that the internet service provider subpoena should be quashed because it sought protected information and the subpoena was unduly burdensome.

The court’s order denied the motion to quash, meaning the internet service providers can be expected to turn over the names and addresses of the subscribers with the IP addresses that First Time has identified. The court’s order also reveals that John Doe 2 claims to be a woman who denies downloading the adult video. While denying the motion to quash, the Court made a very interesting notation at the end of the order:

The Magistrate Judge notes Doe No. 2’s concerns that the disclosure of her identity can lead to unwarranted embarrassing public disclosures, extortion-like attempts to force settlements, or lawsuits brought against defendants who have no liability. Those concerns are not far-fetched. However, the Rules of Professional Responsibility and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure stand as barriers to such conduct. Plaintiff’s attorneys are admonished to carefully consider these rules before determining what use to make of the information garnered from the Subpoena.

This case was previously blogged about by Indiana Intellectual Property Law News when it was filed. This is one of three suits currently pending in the Southern District of Indiana that are copyright infringement suits alleging infringement of adult videos by Indiana John Does using the BitTorrent “distribution protocol”.

Practice Tip: Pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3), the Court could quash a subpoena if it requests protected information or if it is unduly burdensome. The court here noted “there is no expectation of privacy in Internet subscriber information because it has already been exposed to a third party, the Internet Service Provider.” Regarding the undue burden argument, the court noted “Courts that have addressed this issue have concluded that the issuance of a subpoena to the Internet Service Provider of putative defendants does not create an undue burden on the putative defendants because they are not required to produce anything.”

October 5, 2011

Indiana Patent Attorneys Obtain 105 Patents for Indiana Companies in September, 2011

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 105 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in September, 2011:

	PAT. NO.	Title
1	D645,908	Wall mounted sign
2	D645,906	Literature holder
3	D645,905	Literature holder
4	8,026,822	Networked pest control system
5	8,026,821	System for monitoring caregivers and equipment at a patient location

October 4, 2011

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Consider Several Intellectual Property Cases

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, DC – On Monday, October 3, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court opened its session and refused to review several appellate decisions in patent, trademark and copyright cases. These included the following cases:

Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton, LLP., U.S., No. 10-1339.

The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed a district court dismissal of a patent owner’s malicious prosecution suite against the patent attorney that requested the USPTO to reexamine his patents. The patent owner had alleged, among other things, that the law firm filed a sham reexamination request with misrepresentations of the prior art. The district court held that the state law claims were essentially allegations of fraud and bad faith before the USPTO, preempted by federal law under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001). The district court also found the claims over the 2003 reexamination request barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

October 3, 2011

Southern District of Indiana Issues Discovery Order in Copyright Infringement Suit Over Our Lady of America Works

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch of the Southern District of Indiana has issued a decision in a discovery dispute in a copyright infringement lawsuit. Intellectual property attorneys for Kevin B. McCarthy of Indianapolis, Indiana, Albert H. Langsenkamp, Carmel, Indiana and BVM Foundation, Inc. of Batesville, Indiana had filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana making several claims against that Patricia Ann Fuller, also known as Sister Joseph Therese of Fostoria, Ohio and John Doe of Ohio. Ms. Fuller apparently has counterclaimed claiming trademark and copyright ownership of the copyrighted work OUR LADY OF AMERICA. Ms. Fuller apparently operates the website www.ourladyofamerica.com.

The Our Lady of America copyrighted works are drawings and statutes based upon a nun’s visions of the Virgin Mary that began in the 1950s. According to the complaint filed in the case, Ms. Fuller claims she owns the copyright to one of the Our Lady of America statute and the parties dispute the ownership. The plaintiffs disagree and believe Ms. Fuller is making numerous misrepresentations regarding the works and is fraudulently representing herself as the owner of the works and marks. In the original complaint, the plaintiffs made claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, deception, theft, criminal conversion, and civil conspiracy. It appears that Ms. Fuller is claiming copyright and/or trademark rights to the images and statutes. The court’s discovery orders require her to disclose information such as “how the representation of the Virgin Mary was being used as a trademark in 1960.

Practice Tip: It appears that Ms. Fuller provided vague answers to numerous interrogatories sent to her. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(A) requires parties to supplement their answers to discovery questions when the party learns that an answer provided is incomplete or incorrect.
Continue reading

September 30, 2011

133 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in September, 2011

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The US Trademark Office issued the following 133 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in September, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

	Reg. Number	Mark	Click to View
1	4,031,780	THE HOOSIER FARMER	LIVE
2	4,032,934	CLASSKIT	LIVE
3	4,031,704	SHORT CIRCUITS	LIVE
4	4,031,695	VIRGINITY ROCKS	LIVE
5	4,032,917	SMART POWER BLOCK	LIVE

September 29, 2011

Coach, Inc. Files Federal Trademark and Copyright Infringement Lawsuits Against Indiana Company J & JS Petroleum, Inc. for Infringements of Handbags

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark lawyers for Coach, Inc. of New York, New York have filed a trademark infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging J & JS Petroleum, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed the forty-eight trademarks registered with the US Trademark Office. In this suit, Coach also alleges J & JS infringed the copyrighted works of Registration No. VAu000704542, LEGACY STRIPE, Registration No. VA0001228917, SIGNATURE C DESIGNS, Registration No. VAu1-046658, COACH 70^th ANNIVERSARY SNAPHEAD PRINT AND Registration No. VA1-010-918, COACH CLOVER DESIGN which have been registered by the US Copyright Office.

The complaint against J & JS alleges that the company operates a gas station and convenience store at 9025 Brookville Road in Indianapolis where a Coach representative purchased a purse labeled “Coach” on August 21, 2011. The knock-off purse was purchased for $59.99, rather than the normal retail price of the Coach purse of approximately $298. Coach had not authorized the use of the “Coach” mark on the purse sold. The Coach representative viewed additional product labeled “Coach” for sale in the store. The complaint makes claims of trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin and false advertising, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, unfair competition, criminal forgery, and criminal counterfeiting.

Practice Tip: Coach has recently been very aggressively defending its intellectual property rights in Indiana. Indiana Intellectual Property Law News has previously reported on several cases here:

Coach Files Two Trademark and Copyright Infringement Lawsuits in Northern District Over Knock-Off Coach Items

Coach, Inc. Sues Chaos of Muncie and Angelina’s Unique Boutique for Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement For Sale of Coach Knock-Off Products

Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. Sue Diggz Clothing LLC and Lori Harth for trademark and trade dress infringement
Continue reading

September 27, 2011

The Court of Appeals for Indiana Dismisses Counterfeiting, Theft and Corrupt Business Criminal Charges Based On Alleged Trademark Infringement Suit Involving Sale of Toy Guns.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Chief Judge ROBB of the Court of Appeals for Indiana has issued an opinion regarding An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin Houston, Texas; who were charged with counterfeiting, theft, and corrupt business influence Huntington County, Indiana Circuit Court based upon the sale of toy guns that allegedly infringement federally registered trademarks.

Defendant Lin operates a business in Houston, Texas called Generation Guns, which imports toy guns from Taiwan and sells the toy guns to the public, including the GA-112 Airsoft gun. Defendant Yao is the vice-president of a Houston bank and is a friend of Lin who allegedly occasionally helps Lin with the Generation Guns business. In 2009, firearms manufacturer Heckler & Koch engaged Continental Enterprises of Indianapolis, to investigate possible trademark infringement claims of H&K’s federally registered trademarks. Continental Enterprises placed orders with Generation Guns for several guns that it believed to infringe H&K’s trademarks and had the products delivered to addresses in Huntington County, Indiana. Continental Enterprises then filed a report with the Indiana State Police. The prosecuting attorney in Huntington County then charged Lin and Yao each with three counts of counterfeiting, three counts of theft, and one count of corrupt business influence “based upon the similarities between the GA-112 airsoft guns and H&K’s firearm.”

The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss in the trial court arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction since all the alleged act occurred in Texas and also argued that the toy gun was not a “written instrument” for the purposes of the counterfeiting crime. The trial court found that it did have jurisdiction, but dismissed the counterfeiting claim, finding that toy was not a “written instrument.” In this interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the trial court should have dismissed the case since Indiana did not have territorial jurisdiction. The court looked to Indiana Code 35-41-1-1(b), which states that Indiana has jurisdiction if conduct or a result that is an element of the crime occurred in Indiana. The court noted that jurisdiction in a criminal case is a factual issue for the jury to determine. However, the court noted that there was no factual dispute about whether the acts occurred in Texas, and therefore, the case should have been dismissed as a matter of law. The court did not address the claim that the toy gun was not a written instrument.

Practice Tip: This case is interesting to Indiana intellectual property attorneys for a number of reasons. First, it involves Continental Enterprises, a frequent litigant in Indiana intellectual property lawsuit. Indiana Intellectual Property Law News has previously blogged about Continental Enterprises cases here.

Secondly, this case addresses the unique issue of territorial jurisdiction for criminal actions. In this case the court looked to Indiana Code 35-41-1-1(b), which states that Indiana has jurisdiction if conduct or a result that is an element of the crime occurred in Indiana. The court noted that jurisdiction in a criminal case is a factual issue for the jury to determine. However, the court noted that there was no factual dispute about whether the acts occurred in Texas, and therefore, the case should have been dismissed as a matter of law. This is a different standard than Indiana courts’ personal jurisdiction for purposes of civil liability.

Finally, the Court of Appeals decided that the trial court did not have jurisdiction, there by evading the issues of how a “product” like a toy gun, can be a “written instrument” for purposes of counterfeiting criminal offense. Another recent Court of Appeals opinion addressed the definition of a written instrument.
Continue reading

September 26, 2011

James Buchanan and J. B. Custom, Inc. Sues Henry Repeating Arms Company for Trade Dress and Right of Publicity Right Infringement for Firearms Ads in Allen County Superior Court, Case Removed to Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, IN – Trademark lawyers for James Buchanan and J.B. Custom, Inc. of Huntertown, Indiana filed a trademark infringement suit in Allen County, Indiana Superior Court alleging Henry Repeating Arms Company of Bayonne, New Jersey infringed trademark registration no. 3645700 for the mark MARE’S LEG, registered with the US Trademark Office. On September 20, 2011, the case was removed to the Northern District of Indiana upon motion of trademark attorneys for Henry Repeating Arms Company.

According to the complaint, J.B. Custom owns trade dress rights to unique shapes, designs, and appearances of certain pistols designs, including the “Mare’s Leg” lever-action pistol. J.B. Custom advertises the Mare’s Leg pistol design using unique likenesses of Mr. James Buchanan in cowboy attire, including on its website www.maresleg.com. The complaint alleges that Henry’s 2011 catalog included advertisement for a product called “Henry’s Mare’s Leg.” The product advertisement also appeared on Henry’s website. The complaint alleges the Henry’s Mare’s Leg is virtually identical and confusingly similar to J.B. Custom’s product. The complaint also states that Henry has used Mr. Buchanan’s likeness in advertising the Henry’s Mare’s Leg. Trademark attorneys have made claims of misuse of publicity right relating to the unauthorized use of Mr. Buchanan’s likeness, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, passing off, false advertising and unfair competition.

Practice Tip: In addition to trademark and trade dress claims, which are covered by the federal Lanham Act, the plaintiffs have made a claim under Indiana’s Right of Publicity law because the defendant has alleged used Mr. Buchanan’s likeness in advertisements without Mr. Buchanan’s permission. Indiana Intellectual Property Law News blogged about Indiana’s unique right to publicity law here. The right of publicity protects the right to control the commercial use of a person’s identity.
Continue reading

September 23, 2011

Rare Criminal Conviction for Copyright Infringement for Unauthorized Online File Sharing of Film Black Swan

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Los Angeles, CA – Wesley DeSoto of Los Angeles, California has pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal copyright infringement in a rare federal criminal prosecution of copyright infringement, which was brought in the Central District of California. Mr. DeSoto allegedly uploaded copies of the copyrighted films Black Swan, The Fighter, The King’s Speech, 127 Hours and Rabbit Hole on to the website The Pirate Bay. Mr. DeSoto allegedly used the bittorrent protocol to share these films in January 2011 using the username “mf34inc.” According to Wired.com, the FBI raided Mr. DeSoto’s apartment earlier this year after being alerted of the alleged infringement by the Motion Picture Association of America. Mr. DeSoto is an actor and member of the Screen Actor’s Guild. He had obtained advanced copies of the films through his SAG membership. Investigators were able to identify Mr. DeSoto as “mf34inc” by tracing username’s Internet Protocol address to Mr. DeSoto.

On September 12, 2011, Mr. DeSoto and copyright infringement attorneys at U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a plea agreement with the court. Mr. DeSoto agreed to plead guilty and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is recommending a sentence of three years of probation. The judge in the case, however, will not be bound by the sentencing recommendation. The offense carries a maximum sentence of three years of incarceration.

Practice Tip: Mr. DeSoto was charged under 17 U.S.C. § 506(1)(C), which criminalizing the distribution of a copyrighted work that is being prepared for commercial distribution by making it available on a computer network to the public. This provision was passed in 2005. Mr. DeSoto’s case is a rare prosecution under this statute.
Continue reading

September 22, 2011

80/20, Inc. Sues Parco Inc. and Phillip Andrew Roser for Trademark and Copyright Infringement of Aluminum Products Online and in Product Catalogs

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, IN – Trademark lawyers for 80/20, Inc. of Columbia City, Indiana filed a trademark infringement suit in the Northern District of Indianaalleging Parco Inc of Huntertown, Indiana and Phillip Andrew Roser of Fort Wayne, Indiana infringed trademark registration no. 2,699,302 for the mark 80/20 and no. 3,362,571 for the mark AUTO QUOTER registered by the US Trademark Office as well as three unregistered trademarks. 80/20 also alleges Parco has infringed five registered copyrights owned by 80/20.

80/20 is a leading seller of aluminum extrusion products and accessories. The complaint alleges that Parco is a former distributor of 80/20 products, and Mr. Roser is the president and majority shareholder of Parco. 80/20 alleges that Parco and Mr. Roser “created a scheme whereby they would use Parco’s status as a distributor to form and launch a direct competitor to 80/20.” The complaint states that Parco has been using 80/20 trademarks and copyrighted material on its online advertising and in catalogs. 80/20 alleges that Parco registered an internet domain name “parco8020.com” which used the 80/20 mark without authorization. 80/20 sent a cease and desist letter to Parco on June 14, 2011, and Parco then removed allegedly infringing material from its website. 80/20 alleges that Parco subsequently used photos of 80/20 products to create Parco promotional material, including a YouTube video. 80/20’s copyright and trademark attorneys have made claims of copyright infringement, federal trademark infringement, Lanham Act violation of “passing off,” common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, “anti-cyber squatting,” Indiana law unfair competition and deceptive trade practices. 80/20 is seeking to hold Mr. Roser individually liable, through theories of personal liability arising under copyright and trademark law and vicarious liability. 80/20 seeks an injunction, accounting of profits, impoundment and destruction of infringing catalogs, actual damages, attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: 80/20 has designated one of its claims “passing off” and cites 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). The federal law calls this type of claim a false designation of origin and false description. The law prohibits any use of marks or words that create a likelihood of confusion as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of a product.
Continue reading