Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Vandor Corporation, of Richmond, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Matthews International Corp., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania infringed its rights on United States Patent No. 9,649,240 (“the ‘240 Patent”) titled “Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Sides,” and United States Patent No. 8,375,535 (the ‘535 patent), BlogPhoto-4-300x216titled “Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Features.” Plaintiff is seeking judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of both patents. Both patents describe caskets and cremation containers to be used in cremation and other funeral services. The caskets include sides and edges that fold down. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sells a product named “Matthews Cremation Fold-Down Rental Insert” that infringes upon claims of both patents.

Continue reading

BlogPhoto-3Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ashlin Hadden of Noblesville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Voldico, LLC. of Osgood, Indiana infringed copyright rights of Ashlin Hadden.  Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, actual damages, and judgment including statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

According to the complaint, the parties entered into a contractual agreement where Plaintiff would act as an insurance agent for the Defendant, who is an insurance broker.

In addition to breach of contract claim for failure to pay commissions, and other common law claims, Plaintiff is also asserting a copyright infringement claim. Plaintiff alleges that in May 2017, she created an advertising website for potential customers to purchase insurance through her. Plaintiff alleges that in June 2017, the Defendant created a nearly identical website, using the same exact language as Plaintiff’s, to obtain insurance customers for themselves. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant plagiarized the advertising language of Plaintiff’s website.

Continue reading

South Bend, INABRO Industries, Inc., of South Bend, Indiana, had filed a Copyright infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that 1 New Trade, Inc., Igor Zorin, Boris Babenchik, Vadim Fishkin of Baltimore Maryland, and Quest Specialty Coatings, BlogPhoto-2-300x183LLC of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, infringed copyright on pending US Copyright Application No. 1-1845314781 filed by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is an Indiana corporation that distributes automotive, industrial, and consumer products such as cleaners, adhesives, lubricants, service fluids, and engine additives. Defendant is a Maryland corporation that distributes similar types of products.

One of the products that Plaintiff distributes is a carburetor and choke cleaner. The copyright for the packaging of this product is pending under application number 1-1845314781. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has been unfairly competing by obtaining a similar product from Quest and redistributing it for sale in packaging virtually identical to Plaintiff’s packaging. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is distributing a similar product, in identical packaging, to a similar market.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kimball International, Inc. of Jasper, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of IndianaBlogPhoto-1 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.

Continue reading

blogphotoIndianapolis, 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.

Continue reading

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

Continue reading

2017-01-03-BlogPhotoIndiana 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.

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

Continue reading

BlogPhoto-206x300INDIANAPOLIS, 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.

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 inBlogPhoto-4-300x170 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.”

Continue reading

Contact Information