The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 175 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in August 2020 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys.
| Reg. Number | Word Mark |
| 6125786 | CASTED |
| 6127380 | REPAIRWARES GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. EVERY TIME. COM |
| 6136391 | VU |
| 6136380 | HEALTHLINC |
| 6136377 | HEALTHLINC RX |
The Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that a plaintiff alleging trademark infringement does not have to prove willfulness to recover an award of profits. This ruling came down in the case of Romag Fasteners Inc. (“Romag”), versus Fossil Group, Inc. FKA Fossil, Inc. et. al (“Fossil”).
In this case, Romag and Fossil entered into an agreement to use Romag’s fasteners on Fossil’s leather goods. Romag claimed factories in China were making Fossil’s leather goods using counterfeit Romag fasteners. As such, Romag sued Fossil, among other defendants, for trademark infringement, which can trigger an award of a defendant’s profits.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Molson Coors Beverage Co. (“Molson Coors”) v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC (“Anheuser-Busch”) which was originally filed in United District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
The basic issue is whether “the true statement ‘their [Molson Coors] beer is made using corn syrup and ours [Anheuser-Busch] isn’t’ wrongly implies that ‘their beer contains corn syrup.’” While the ingredient lists for both Miller Lite and Coors Light include “Corn Syrup (Dextrose),” Molson Coors argues that a list of “ingredients” is different from what is contained in the finished product. To support its argument, Molson Coors relies on the fact alcohol is omitted from the ingredients list, but is included in the final product. Continue reading
The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 174 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in July 2020, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:
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.
| 1 | RE048122 | Filter element endplate defining inflow and outflow flow paths |
| 2 | D0891646 | Light assembly |
| 3 | D0891585 | Faucet |
| 4 | 10,727,956 | Wireless sensors in medical environments |
| 5 | 10,727,520 | Fuel cell stack assembly |
| 6 | 10,727,084 | Method for creating through-connected vias and conductors on a substrate |
The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 172 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana inJuly 2020 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
Overhauser Law Offices the publisher of this site, assists with US and Foreign Trademark Searches, Trademark Aplications and assists with enforcing Trademarks via Infringement Litigation and Licensing.
| 1 | 6115373 | BANKRUPTCYBYPHONE.COM |
| 2 | 6113380 | OCTODOR |
| 3 | 6113201 | AVID LABS |
| 4 | 6113199 | A AVID LABS |
| 5 | 6112679 | DR. PATTI |
| 6 | 6115341 | BLUE JAR COLLECTION |
Hammond, Indiana– Nexus Staffing, Inc. (“Nexus Staffing”), the Plaintiff, claims Nexus Employment Solutions Plus of Indiana, Inc. (“Nexus Employment”), the Defendant, intentionally infringed its rights in U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,722,627 for the word “NEXUS” in connection with employment recruiting and professional staffing services. According to the Complaint, Nexus Staffing has used the NEXUS Mark in connection with staffing and employment services throughout the United States since at least 2005.
Nexus Staffing claims it sent a cease and desist letter to Nexus Employment in July 2018, but Nexus Employment took no action to cease its use of its allegedly confusingly similar name. Nexus Staffing further claims actual consumer confusion has occurred and is likely to continue if Nexus Employment continues using the NEXUS Mark. Based on the allegations, Nexus Staffing is seeking damages for intentional trademark infringement, false advertising, and cyberpiracy, all under the Lanham Act.
The case was assigned to District Judge Theresa L. Springmann and Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar in the Northern District and assigned Case 2:20-cv-00166-TLS-JPK.
Evansville, Indiana – According to the Complaint, DMI Sports, Inc. (“DMI”) entered into an Asset Purchase and License Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Arachnid, Inc. (“Arachnid”) to purchase Arachnid’s “Consumer Products Line” of dart related products in 1999. Along with the Purchase Agreement, DMI allegedly obtained a Trademark License to make and sell consumer goods under the ARACHNID trademarks (the “Licensed Marks”). Under the Purchase Agreement, Arachnid allegedly retained the ARACHNID name and trademarks to sell dart products commercially. Indian Industries, Inc. d/b/a Escalade Sports (“Escalade”), the Plaintiff, claims to have acquired DMI in 2013 along with the Trademark License. Escalade claims Arachnid 360, the Defendant, is the successor in interest to Arachnid.
Escalade claims that Arachnid 360 began promoting a consumer dart game under the Licensed Marks around August 2015. While Arachnid 360 apparently claimed to have no knowledge of the Purchase Agreement, once it reviewed the Purchase Agreement, Arachnid 360 claimed Escalade was in violation of the Quality Control section for failure to provide samples of new products. Escalade claims after it provided samples to Arachnid 360, the company did not pursue their claims Escalade breached the Purchase Agreement. About four years later in January 2020, Arachnid 360 allegedly sent a letter to Escalade claiming Escalade had materially breached the Purchase Agreement. After responding that it had not breached the Purchase Agreement, Escalade claims Arachnid 360 sent it a letter purporting to terminate the Trademark License.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Flexible Steel Lacing Co.’s (“Flexco”) trade dress is invalid because it is functional.
Flexco originally filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division for trade dress infringement and unfair competition against Conveyor Accessories, Inc. (“CAI”). CAI counterclaimed seeking cancellation of Flexco’s trademarks and seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CAI, finding that Flexco’s trade dress was functional because the product’s utilitarian advantages were disclosed in an expired utility patent, internal corporate documents, and advertising materials.
This case was before Chief Judge, Diane Wood, Judge Joel Flaum and Judge Kenneth Ripple assigned Appeal No. 19-2035 and was decided April 7, 2020.
Indianapolis, Indiana – Jeremy Meier d/b/a Meier Photography (“Meier”), the Plaintiff, claims to be a professional photographer and owner of U.S. Copyright Registration No. VAu 1-381-446 which includes 380 photographs taken in the Spring of 2019 (the “Registered Photos”). According to the Complaint, Kelley Global Brands, LLC d/b/a KLH Audio (“KLH”), the Defendant, manufactures and sells audio equipment. Meier claims KLH used and published some of the Registered Photos without paying for the use and without the authorized consent of Meier resulting in copyright infringement.
However, the Complaint further states, that Meier and KLH “entered into an agreement pursuant to which Plaintiff agreed to take certain photos in exchange for Defendant paying for the rights to use said photos (the ‘Agreement’).” This may create an issue over whether the copyright infringement can be maintained. If KLH obtained “rights to use the Photos,” it may have a valid defense of “license.”
A similar issue was raised in the famous case known as the “exploding yogurt factory case.”
U.S. Supreme Court–Frederick Allen (“Allen”) was hired as a videographer to document the recovery of the Queen Anne’s Revenge shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Allen worked to document the recovery for over a decade and registered copyrights for his works. When North Carolina published some of Allen’s work online, Allen sued for copyright infringement. North Carolina moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground of state sovereign immunity; while Allen argued the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (“CRCA”) removed the States’ sovereign immunity.
The District Court agreed with Allen while the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of North Carolina on March 23, 2020.
Sovereign immunity has recently been the basis for granting summary judgment in several recent copyright cases in the Southern District of Indiana, namely at least Richard N. Bell v. Jay L. Hess, Case No. 1:16-cv-02463-TWP-DML, (S.D. Ind. March 9, 2018) and Richard N. Bell v. Jason Henderson, Case No. 1:16-cv-02488-RLY-DML, (S.D. Ind. July 23, 2018).
