Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

November 17, 2020

Carved LLC of Elkhart Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

South Bend, Indiana –Apparently, BelAir Electronics, Inc. (“BelAir”), the Plaintiff, is the assignee of two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,941,195 (the “‘195 Patent”) and 10,097,676 (the “‘676 Patent), both entitled “Protective Mask of Mobile Phone.” According to the Complaint, Carved LLC (“Carved”), the Defendant, manufactures, sells, and distributes protective masks for mobile devices (the “Accused Products”). BelAir claims the Accused Products infringe at least claim 9 of the ‘195 Patent and at least claims 1, 5, 8, and 9 of the ‘676 Patent.Per the Complaint, BelAir sent notice of the alleged infringement to Carved on or about December 17, 2019. Because Carved has not ceased producing and selling the Accused Products, BelAir is seeking damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. Continue reading

November 16, 2020

Patent Infringement Case Dismissed for Forum Non Conveniens

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Tyler Research Corporation (“TRC”), the Plaintiff, filed suit against the Defendants, Envacon, Inc., Kieran Bozman, and JKKB Holding Corporation, alleging infringement of its rights in United States Patent No. 6,273,053 (the “‘053 Patent”). After amending the Complaint, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Forum Non-Conveniens.

TRC is apparently a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal place of business in Alberta, Canada. According to the Opinion of the Court, Envacon, Inc. and JKKB Holding Corporation are both Canadian entities and Kieran Bozman resides in Canada.

Forum non conveniens allows a district court to dismiss a case “in order to best service the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.” Stroitelstvo Bulgaria Ltd. v. Bulgarian-American Enter. Fund, 589 F.3d 417, 421 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Clerides v. Boeing Co., 534 F.3d 623, 627–28 (7th Cir. 2008)). The Court in this case found that while a “Canadian court is unlikely to adjudicate a claim for the infringement of a United States patent,” TRC could still bring a claim for infringement of its Canadian patent and a claim for breach of contract, “which alone would remedy the alleged wrong.” Opinion at p. 9. After finding an alternative forum is available for the case, the Court conducted an analysis and found the public interest and private interests of the parties would be best served by dismissing the case and allowing it to proceed in Canada. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

November 12, 2020

Wet Floor Safety Sign at Issue in Patent Infringement Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eddie M. Green, Jr. Jeffersonville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Meijer, Inc. infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 9,940,796 (“the ‘796 Registration”) for “Wet Floor Safety Sign”. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Eddie M. Green, Jr. (“Green”), the Plaintiff, apparently owns United States Patent No. 9,940,796 (the “‘796 Patent”) for the “Yellow Fellow Safety Sign.” Believing the Defendant, Meijer, Inc., infringed the ‘796 Patent, Green filed suit, pro se, alleging patent infringement. Green claims that despite warning Meijer of the alleged infringement on two separate occasions, Meijer continues to use the allegedly infringing wet floor signs.

Green is seeking an injunction and damages for the allegedly unlicensed use of his invention. As in another lawsuit against different defendants, Green claims his ability to sell his product and costs for marketing and advertising his patented product will be greater due to Meijer’s “misuse of fake and unpatented products in the safety field.”

November 6, 2020

Patent Office Issues 202 Patents to Indiana Citizens in October 2020

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign patent searches, patent applications and assists with enforcing patents via infringement litigation and licensing.

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 202 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in August 2020, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

	Patent No.	Title
1	D0900,280	Faucet
2	D0900,147	Display screen or portion thereof with graphical user interface and computer icons
3	D0899,954	Sensor
4	D0899,890	Knob
5	D0899,889	Knob

November 4, 2020

159 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in October

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 159 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in October 2020 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Reg. Number	Word Mark
6171625	GANT COIN
6186820	GRASTON
6185288	ACTIVE CARE
6184959	A&A SURFACES
6184958	A&A SURFACES

November 3, 2020

Indiana Trademark Litigation: JetPro Pilots, LLC Seeks Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – JetPro Pilots, LLC, the Plaintiff, apparently recruit, staff, and provide pilots, flight attendants, and technicians to its clients for use on their aircrafts. According to the Complaint, Defendants, Jet Pro, Inc. and Keith Kenneally, offer freight brokerage and forwarding services. The Defendants allegedly sent a cease and desist letter to JetPro Pilots claiming JetPro Pilots was violating Defendants’ U.S. Registration No. 3,186,308 (the “Jet Pro, Inc. Mark”). JetPro Pilots claims to have been in business since 2009 with the first allegation relating to confusion arising out of its use of the phrase “Jet Pro” coming from Defendants in July 2020, with no actual consumer confusion in the eleven years of co-existence.

Believing this to be a credible threat of immediate litigation, JetPro Pilots filed suit for a declaratory judgment for unenforceability of a trademark and a declaration of non-infringement pursuant to the Trademark Laws of the United States and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. JetPro Pilots asserts in favor of declaratory judgment that the parties’ logos are dissimilar and the parties provide different goods and services making consumer confusion unlikely.

November 2, 2020

Seventh Circuit Confirms Presumptive Fees in Copyright Litigation are Not Guaranteed

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of fees for the Defendant, David Knott (“Knott”), after Plaintiff, Timothy B. O’Brien LLC (“Apple Wellness”), voluntarily dismissed all its claims with prejudice.

Originally filed in the Western District of Wisconsin, Apple Wellness alleged that Knott, a former employee of Apple Wellness started a similar, competing wellness shop. Apple Wellness sued Knott for alleged trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. Knott countersued for tortious interference and retaliation. The District Court found the copyright claims baseless and denied a preliminary injunction on the trademark and trade dress claims. Apple Wellness later voluntarily dismissed all its claims.

While Apple Wellness submitted a motion to dismiss without prejudice, the District Court ordered Apple Wellness to withdraw its motion or accept a dismissal with prejudice because Knott had already expended resources litigating an injunction. The District Court further noted that in its opinion, no party’s claim was strong. Apple agreed to the dismissal with prejudice and the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims. The District Court subsequently denied Knott’s motion for fees leading to this appeal only as to the fees for the copyright claims and the appeal.

The Court of Appeals found that while Apple Wellness’s copyright claims were frivolous, it appears the claims were brought in good faith. Therefore, “there were minimal concerns regarding compensation and deterrence.” Further, Knott did not have to expend a large amount of time, money, or energy defending against the copyright claims as they were quickly dismissed. After considering all of the factors, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court denying Knott’s motion for fees.

October 27, 2020

Trademark Infringement Case Transferred to Northern District of Indiana

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Modern Vascular LLC (“Modern Vascular”), the Plaintiff, originally filed suit against Defendants, Modern Vascular & Vein Center, Nazar Golewale and Jane Doe Golewale, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. In granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Indiana.

According to the Complaint, Modern Vascular has used its mark “MODERN VASCULAR” since 2017, which is registered under U.S. Trademark No. 5,570,334 (the “Registered Mark”). Modern Vascular claims the Defendants have advertised services, entered into agreements, and caused confusion with third parties using its Registered Mark. Due to the alleged continued use of the Registered Mark by the Defendants after being informed of the alleged infringement, Modern Vascular is seeking damages for willful trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, and false designation of origin.

October 23, 2020

U.S. Supreme Court Rules “Generic.com” Trademarks May be Trademarkable

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C.– A travel-reservation website, Booking.com, filed federal trademark applications for a number of marks including the term “Booking.com.” After being examined, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused registration for the mark on the grounds it was a generic name for online reservation services.

However, the District Court, the Fourth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court all found “Booking.com” should be granted registration even though the term “booking” on its own would be generic. The Courts reasoned that because only one entity can occupy an internet domain name at one time, consumers could associate a term styled as “generic.com” with a particular website and source of services.

While the USPTO also argued that allowing trademark protection for “Booking.com” could inhibit competitors from using the term “booking,” the Supreme Court cited multiple doctrines that guard against anticompetitive effects. Those doctrines ensure that a registration for terms such as “Booking.com” would not give the registrant a monopoly on the term “booking.” Therefore, the Supreme Court declined to rule in a manner “that would largely disallow registration of ‘generic.com’ terms and open the door to cancellation of scores of currently registered marks.”

October 21, 2020

Photographer Sues for Alleged Copyright Infringement of Kid Rock Photo

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana –According to the Complaint, Larry G. Philpot (“Philpot”), the Plaintiff, is a well-known photographer of musicians. Philpot claims to have taken a photo of a well-known musician, Kid Rock, during one of Kid Rock’s concerts. After taking the photo, Philpot apparently applied for and obtained U.S. Copyright Registration No. VAu 1-182-727 for the photo (the “Registered Photo”).

Philpot claims COTR, LLC d/b/a Chicks on the Right of Indianapolis (“COTR”) copied and published the Registered Photo on its website. While Philpot claims to have discovered the alleged infringement on or after July 26, 2017, the post was apparently removed at some point after December 21, 2017. However, per the Complaint, Philpot’s counsel sent a formal infringement notice to COTR on July 6, 2020, prior to the filing of the Complaint. Philpot is seeking damages for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 504 and 505.