The US Trademark Office issued the following 166 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in April, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:
| Reg. Number | Mark | Click to View | ||
| 1 | 3,950,940 | COR-NOC-ULAR THIS IS WHAT THE INDIANS USED BEFORE THEY HAD BINOCULARS. ANTIQUE AND COLLECTIBLE | View | |
| 2 | 3,950,752 | INTROCOMM | View | |
| 3 | 3,950,619 | TPNA | View | |
| 4 | 3,950,576 | WHEN YOUR SELF CAN’T FIND YOUR ESTEEM | View | |
| 5 | 3,950,574 | I AM ENOUGH | View |
Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 120 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in April, 2011:
|
PAT. NO. |
Title |
||
|
1 |
|||
|
2 |
|||
|
3 |
|||
|
4 |
|||
|
5 |
Indianapolis, Indiana – The Southern District Court of Indiana has dismissed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Haycco LLC, a California limited liability company, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction. Traveler’s Joy, a Delaware Corporation, Haycco had been sued for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution of trademark. Both companies provide a gift registry service that allows wedding guests to make monetary contributions to the bride and groom’s honeymoon. The complaint alleged infringement of US trademark registration nos. 3,560,502 and 3,718,357, which are for stylized logos of the word TRAVELER’S JOY for gift registration services. The plaintiff operates the website www.travelersjoy.com and defendant runs http://joyhoneymoon.com. Traveler’s Joy alleged that the marks were sufficiently confusing to cause economic harm to Traveler’s Joy. Indiana Intellectual Property Blog has previously blogged about this case.
Traveler’s Joy had claimed that Indiana’s Southern District Court should have personal jurisdiction over Haycco because the website operated by Haycco would allow customers in Indiana to complete transactions. The court, however, noted that no Indiana customers had never had any customers from Indiana and had blocked web transactions from Indiana. The court also noted that Haycco had no employees, property, or bank accounts in Indiana and had not directly targeted Indiana in its marketing efforts. The court, therefore, concluded that Haycco does not have the “minimum contacts” necessary to establish personal jurisdiction. The court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
The publisher of this blog represented Haycco, who prevailed in the motion to dismiss.
Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Simon Property Group of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent lawsuit against NorthMobileTech of Middleton, Wisconsin. In its complaint, Simon states that NorthMobileTech has accused Simon of infringing NorthMobileTech’s patent, and Simon believes a patent infringement lawsuit against it is imminent. On April 20, 2011, the same day as Simon’s patent attorneys filed its suit, patent attorneys for NorthMobileTech filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Simon in the Western District of Wisconsin.
Continue reading
Indianapolis, IN – Trademark and copyright lawyers for Coach of New York, New York filed two trademark and copyright infringement suit alleging that Indiana companies and individuals infringed several trademark and copyright registrations in the US Trademark Office and the US Copyright Office.
In the first infringement lawsuit, Coach alleges that Chaos of Muncie, Chaos on Campus, LLC and Teresa Barnes of Muncie, Indiana have been offering for sale and advertising Coach knock-off products. The complaint alleges that in February, the store was offering for sale fifty-five Coach knock-off items including flip-flops, handbags, wallets, and sunglasses. The complaint alleges trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, forgery, and counterfeiting.
Evansville, IN – Trademark lawyers for Scores Holding Company of Utah filed a trademark infringement lawsuit alleging Scores, Inc. of Evansville, Indiana infringed trademark registration nos. 1,830,135; 1,830,405; 1,855,829; and 3,137,609 for marks at US Trademark Office.
According to the complaint filed by trademark attorneys for Scores Holdings, Scores Holdings created “the concept of high-end sophisticated gentleman’s club” and has a “famous and growing chain[.]” Scores Holding owns several federally registered trademarks in association with this business. Scores Holding alleges that Score’s of Evansville is also a gentleman’s club, but is not part of Scores Holding’s chain. The complaint alleges that Score’s of Evansville is a significantly lower quality establishment. Scores Holding claims that Score’s of Evansville is using the trademarked logo in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. Scores Holding also claims false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and common law unfair competition. Intellectual property attorneys for Scores Holding have requested injunctive relief, damages and declaratory judgment.
This case has been assigned to Chief Judge Richard L. Youngand Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmannin the Southern District of Indianaand assigned case no. 3:11-cv-00053-RLY-WGH.
Continue reading
Indianapolis, IN – Pro se plaintiff Angela Ethel Brooks-Ngwenya of Fort Wayne, Indiana filed a copyright infringement suit alleging Indianapolis Public Schools (I.P.S.) infringed the copyrighted work “TIRS”-Transitioning Into Responsible Students, which has been registered by the US Copyright Office, Registration Number TX0006628223 / 2006-05-26.
Ms. Brook-Ngwenya has previously sued I.P.S. over alleged copyright infringement of TIRS, which Ms. Brooks-Ngwenya claims is an educational program she developed while working at I.P.S. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, however, dismissed the case two years ago, after determining that Ms. Brook-Ngwenya had not filed a notice to the Register of Copyrights. The Seventh Circuit Court opinion can be found here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1349120.html. In her present lawsuit, Ms. Brooks-Ngwenya alleges copyright infringement and that an attorney involved committed misconduct in the prior case.
This case has been assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore in the Southern District of Indianaand assigned case no. 1:11-cv-00483-SEB-MJD.
Continue reading
Indianapolis; IN – Patent lawyers for Hill-Rom Services, Inc. of Batesville, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit alleging Stryker Corporation of Kalamazoo, Michigan infringed twelve patents owned by Hill-Rom all of which have been issued by the US Patent Office.
Hill-Rom alleges that Stryker has manufactured, used , imported, offered for sale, or sold ten types of stretchers and hospital beds with powered wheels that infringe Hill-Rom’s patents. Hill-Rom is seeking damages and declaratory judgment for these patent infringement claims as provided by the Patent Act. In the complaint, patent attorneys also claim that two of Stryker’s patents interfere with patent claims in Hill-Rom’s patents, which were filed with the US Patent Office before Stryker filed its patents. Hill-Rom is seeking a declaratory judgment that Stryker’s infringing patents are invalid.
Indianapolis, IN – Trademark lawyers for Trufoods, LLC of New York filed a trademark infringement suit alleging Premier Food Services of Fishers, Indiana and its owners infringed its trademarks involving a Ritter’s Frozen Custard Shoppe franchise that Premier operated. The trademarks at issue are registration numbers 1,976,078; 2,706,642; 2,801,455; and 3,322,584 for the marks “Ritter’s Frozen Custard,” “Ritter’s Frozen Custard Taste the Difference!,” “Cubby Paws,” and “Ritter’s Frozen Custard Legendary Ice Cream” registered with the US Trademark Office.
The Ritter’s Frozen Custard franchise and its associated trademarks are owned by Trufoods. According to the complaint filed by Trufoods trademark attorneys, Premier entered a franchise agreement with Trufoods to operate a Ritter’s in Carmel, Indiana. The complaint alleges that the Ritter’s was opened initially in 2009, but that Premier did not re-open the shop this spring. Trufoods terminated the franchise agreement. Trufoods demanded that Premier return all trademarked items and trade dress and now claims that Premier has failed to do so. The complaint alleges that Premier now operates a competing business called “Coney Island Custard and Hot Dogs” in Avon, Indiana, which also alleged to be a breach of the franchise agreement. Trufoods alleges that Premier is using its trademarked items and trade dress in connection with the Coney Island Custard and Hot Dogs business. The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement, common law trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract.
This case has been assigned to Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinsonand Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana and assigned case no. 1:11-cv-0446-JMS-TAB.
Practice Tip: When a franchise agreement terminates, typically the franchisee must promptly cease using and return all signs and other equipment containing trademarks. Failure to do so may result in a lawsuit for breach of contract as well as trademark infringement.
Continue reading
Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 148 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in March, 2011:
|
PAT. NO. |
Title |
||
|
1 |
|||
|
2 |
|||
|
3 |
Multi-user data transmission/reception system and mode determination method |
||
|
4 |
|||
|
5 |
