Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

January 16, 2018

Indiana Trademark Litigation

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kimball International, Inc. of Jasper, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Jasper Seating Company, Inc. d/b/a Community of Jasper, Indiana infringed its rights on the Indiana State Trademark Registration No. 2017-0052 for the mark “JEWEL.” Plaintiff is seeking an injunction, damages, lost profits, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other relief the Court seems just.

Plaintiff is an Indiana corporation that manufactures furniture for offices, schools, healthcare facilities and hotels. According to the complaint, since August 2015 the Plaintiff has manufactured a line of chairs under the “JEWEL” trademark. Plaintiff has sold the chairs across the country and registered the trademark with the Indiana Secretary of State.

January 12, 2018

Indiana Trademark Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Impact Networking, LLC, of Hammond, and Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Impact Solutions, LLC, of Fishers, Indiana infringed its rights on the United States Trademark registration numbers 2425077 and 2428340. Plaintiff is seeking judgment against Impact Solutions, damages, attorney fees, and costs.

Plaintiff has been in business since 1999, offering IT services. Plaintiff registered two trademarks for its brand, one protecting the word mark “Impact Networking,” and one protecting the company’s logo, which includes the company’s name. According to the complaint, Defendant is also an IT services provider, operating in the same geographic location. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s similar name causes consumer confusion and suggests an affiliation between the two companies. Although Plaintiff’s principal place of business is in Illinois, they have offices in Hammond, Indiana and Indianapolis, Indiana, and do business throughout Indiana. According to the complaint, the two companies are direct competitors in the same geographic area.

January 4, 2018

Patent Office Issues 190 Patents To Indiana Citizens in December 2017

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 190 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in December 2017, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

	Patent No.	Title
1	D0806214	Faucet base
2	D0806211	Sprayer
3	D0805954	Web adjuster
4	D0805837	Combination measuring cap and pour spout jar lid
5	9853581	Lifing and performance optimization limit management for turbine engine

January 3, 2018

Copyright Royalty Board Moves to All Electronic Filing

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indiana copyright owners will now be able to collect royalties more easily. The Copyright Royalty Board Judges announced the termination of the transition period from paper filing to electronic filing using the eCRB electronic filing and case management system. Effective January 1, 2018, all parties having the requisite technological capability must file documents electronically. The CRB will not accept paper filings except filings (1) from pro se parties technologically incapable of using eCRB and (2) documents not amenable to electronic filing as described in 37 CFR § 350.5(j). Any entity obtaining an eCRB password consents to electronic delivery of all documents subsequent to a Petition to Participate. See 37 CFR § 350.5(g). The Judges refer counsel and pro se parties having an interest in CRB proceedings to 37 CFR § 350.5.

January 2, 2018

160 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in December 2017

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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

Registration No.	Word Mark	Click To View
5366639	ALTERNATIVE & DIRECT INVESTMENT SECURITIES ASSOCIATION	TSDR
5365157	GEARPET	TSDR
5365049	CHROMATIC	TSDR
5364979	COUPONCABIN SIDEKICK	TSDR
5364834	GRIZZLY PEAK	TSDR
5364826	SPLASH TECH	TSDR

December 22, 2017

William T. Lawrence Announces Decision to Take Senior Status

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (December 22, 2017):

More changes are coming to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, as District Judge William T. Lawrence has notified President Donald J. Trump of his intention to take senior status effective July 1, 2018.

Judge Lawrence will continue to render substantial judicial service as a senior judge. President Trump, with the guidance of Indiana’s United States Senators Joseph S. Donnelly and Todd C. Young, will nominate Judge Lawrence’s successor.

December 20, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Purdue Trustees Sue Japanese Corporation Over Blood Pressure Monitor Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Lafayette, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, The Trustees of Purdue University of Lafayette, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Omron Corporation and Omron Healthcare Company, Limited of Japan infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,014,611 B1 (“the 611 Patent”) for “Oscillometric Noninvasive Blood Pressure Monitor”. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, compensatory damages, supplemental damages and interest, and such other and further relief and all remedies available at law.

The ‘611 patent describes a small blood pressure monitor to be worn around one’s wrist or other limb. The patented item includes the monitor and a pump to inflate the cuff, among other details. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been infringing the patent by offering for sale numerous infringing blood pressure monitors that Plaintiff alleges “embody the apparatuses and practice the methods covered by one or more claims of the ’611 patent.”

December 19, 2017

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Bell Finds Another Defendant To Sue Over Skyline Photo’s Copyright

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, River Pools & Spas Incorporated of Warsaw, Virginia, infringed its rights in the “Indianapolis Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the US Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115. Bell seeks injunctive relief along with statutory damages, costs and attorney fees.

Bell has filed many lawsuits on his own behalf asserting copyright infringement in Indiana federal courts. See:

The Defendant in this case is River Pools & Spas Incorporated manufactures and installs pools and spas in residential homes. According to the complaint, the Defendant used the copyrighted photo on their business website, without permission or attribution. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant is vicariously liable for any profits realized by third parties through any third party’s downloading and use of the photo off of Defendant’s website.

December 11, 2017

Arizona-based Manufacturer Sues Indiana Corporation for Alleged Infringement of “Bulletproof” and Bulletproof Diesel” common law and registered Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Neal Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Bullet Proof Diesel of Mesa, Arizona filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Superior Auto and Diesel Repair, Inc., of Shelbyville, Indiana infringed its rights in the following trademarks: U.S. Registration No. 4,235,578, U.S. Registration No. 4,262,825, U.S. Registration No. 5,130,772, U.S. Registration No. 5,220,129, U.S. Registration No. 5,220,128, and U.S. Registration No. 5,220,127.

Plaintiff company is an Arizona-based manufacturer of aftermarket parts for diesel engines, specifically Ford Power Stroke diesel engines. In 2009, the Plaintiff began selling an aftermarket part to improve the cooling system of a 6.0 liter Ford Power Stroke diesel engine, and marketed the part under various trade names such as “Bulletproof” and “Bulletproof Diesel.”

The Plaintiff has both common law and registered trademarks for various “Bulletproof” and “Bulletproof Diesel” marks. According to the complaint, the Defendant has marketed packages of aftermarket parts for the same type of Ford engine under the name “Bulletproof” and “Bulletproofing packages.” Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant uses theses marks to market aftermarket parts packages on their website, despite not having authorization from Plaintiff, and Defendant does not sell or install genuine Bullet Proof Diesel parts.

The complaint alleges federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act, and Unfair Competition under Indiana common law. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory and treble damages, costs incurred, prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees and all other relief the court deems proper.

December 8, 2017

Southern District of Indiana Dismisses College Football Players’ Suit Against FanDuel and DraftKings

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Akeem Daniels, Cameron Stingily, and Nicholas Stoner, Inc., filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Defendants, FanDuel, Inc., and DraftKings, Inc. used the likeness of the three Plaintiffs and alleged a Right of Publicity claim.The decision was made by the district court granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the case.

The Defendants are fantasy sports websites that run collegiate fantasy football games, among other sports. The Plaintiffs were collegiate football players whose names appeared on the websites as players available for selection for a user’s fantasy team.

Plaintiffs filed suit claiming that Defendants violated their rights of publicity under Indiana’s Right of Publicity statute by using their name and likenesses on the websites without first obtaining permission. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Defendants put forward three main defenses: that certain statutory exemptions in the Indiana statute removed protection for the Plaintiffs, that First Amendment free speech allowed the use, and that federal copyright law preempted Plaintiff’s claims.

The Court ruled in favor of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the statutory exemptions in the Indiana statute. The Court found that the Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s names fell into the “newsworthy” and “public interest” exemptions to the state Right of Publicity statute. For the sake of thoroughness, the Court continued their analysis and rejected the other statutory exemptions put forward, as well as the First Amendment and federal preemption defenses.