Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

June 13, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Architecture Firms File Four New Infringement Lawsuits

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Copyright attorneys for Plaintiff Design Basics LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed four new infringement lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana.

The first lawsuit lists Heller & Sons, Incorporated d/b/a Heller Homes and Heller Development Corporation of Fort Wayne, Indiana as Defendants. They are accused of infringing the following architectural works, which have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista VA 282-203 & 752-162
Plan No. 1380 – Patterson VA 314-024 & 726-379
Plan No. 1748 – Sinclair VA 371-214 & 726-353
Plan No. 1752 – Lancaster VA 371-204 & 756-041
Plan No. 24077 – Baisden VA 1-044-287 & 1-042-002

Plaintiff Design Basics was joined in this lawsuit by a second Plaintiff, W. L. Martin Home Designs LLC of Jacksonville, Florida. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ infringing plans are “Arthur Williams,” “David Mathew 2,” “Greyson,” “David Mathew 1” and “Spencer 5.”

The second lawsuit was filed against Defendant Slattery Builders LLC of Fort Wayne, Indiana. It is accused of infringing the following copyrighted works:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 8520 – Mindoro VA 1-074-913 & 1-082-723
Plan No. 42065 – Hepburn VA 1-671-719 & 1-921-774

Design Basics contends that Defendant is infringing with two plans, “Savannah” and “Oakhurst.”

The third lawsuit, filed against Ideal Suburban Homes, Inc. of Roanoke, Indiana asserts infringement of the following works:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 8093 – Kirby Farm VA 729-227, 729-218 & 1-432-411
Plan No. 8095 – Sun Valley VA 729-290 & 729-256

Defendant’s accused plans are entitled “Double Eagle” and “Calloway.”

In the final lawsuit, Design Basics was joined by two additional Plaintiffs, W. L. Martin Home Designs as well as Plan Pros, Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska. Defendants in this lawsuit, all Indiana entities, are: Fireside Homes Inc.; Fireside Development Company, LLC d/b/a Fireside Homes Development Company; Harth Homes, Inc.; Willies Development Corporation; and Oakbrook Homes, Inc. d/b/a Juniper Homes, Oakbrook Homes, Willie’s Oakbrook Homes and Riverview Lumber and Building Supply Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs contend that the following intellectual property has been infringed:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 2226 – Wycliffe VA 434-195, 889-020 & 1-926-485
Plan No. 2245 – Tyndale VA 434-205, 710-606 & 1-924-168
Plan No. 2377 – Leighton VA 485-142, 757-614 & 1-942-396
Plan No. 2578 – Kaiser VA 524-251, 710-606 & 1-928-399
Plan No. 2761 – Mayberry VA 513-792, 710-606 & 1-926-488
Plan No. 2907 – Ashley VA 624-090, 624-091 & 826-741
Plan No. 2952 – Francis VA 624-098, 624-099 & 784-226
Plan No. 8030 – Burton Place VA 729-255 & 748-980
Plan No. 8093 – Kirby Farm VA 729-218 & 729-227

In this complaint, the following plans are accused: The Concept Home, Model 1400, Model 1200, Model 1600, Model 1650, Model 1700, Model 1900, Model 1800, Model 1300, Model 1478, Model 1759, Model 1971, and Model 2295.

Design Basics seeks damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

June 9, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Richard Bell, a copyright lawyer and professional photographer, filed three more lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendant in the first lawsuit is Progressive Urban Management Associates of Denver, Colorado. The second lawsuit lists National Healthy Start Association of Washington, D.C. as Defendant. In the third lawsuit, an individual, Chris Young, is listed as Defendant.

In each of these lawsuits, Bell asserts copyright infringement of a photo, entitled “Indianapolis Photo,” which has been registered as Copyright Registration No. VA0001785115 by the U.S. Copyright Office. Each complaint also lists a count of unfair competition.

As with prior complaints, Bell asserts not merely copyright infringement but willful conduct, contending that Defendants in each lawsuit acted “with oppression, fraud, and malice.” He seeks the maximum statutory damages allowable as well as injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees from all Defendants.

Practice Tip: Bell, who has filed numerous lawsuits in recent years alleging infringement of the “Indianapolis Photo” as well as the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo” (the latter is not at issue in any of these lawsuits), has been discussed on this site before. See:

• Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

June 6, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Brew Pub Accused of Infringing Use of Yeti Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Plaintiff Great Divide Brewing Company of Denver, Colorado filed an infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant Red Yeti Brewing Company, Inc. of Jeffersonville, Indiana.

Defendant is listed in the complaint as the owner of a restaurant and brewery named “Red Yeti Brewing Co.” a/k/a “Red Yeti Restaurant and Brewpub.” The complaint asserts that Red Yeti Brewing Co. wrongfully employs the term “Yeti” and a yeti design in its marketing.

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Red Yeti’s conduct infringes two of its trademarks, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,957,257 for a Yeti word mark and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,115,050 for a Yeti design mark. Both have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff asserts that Red Yeti’s actions constitute a deliberate attempt to trade upon Defendant’s goodwill and reputation and that its actions are willful and malicious. In this Indiana federal lawsuit, filed by trademark lawyers for Plaintiff, the following claims for relief are listed:

• Trademark Infringement in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
• Unfair Competition – False Designation of Origin in Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
• Federal Dilution
• Common Law Unfair Competition
• Common Law Trademark Infringement

• Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of C.R.S. § 6-1-113

Great Divide seeks damages, including punitive damages, along with equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

June 1, 2016

262 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in May 2016

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 262 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in May 2016 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.	Word Mark	Click To View
4975014	EDWIN	TSDR
4973313	NCDN	TSDR
4975152	BLACK FRIDAY BRACES	TSDR
4972960	HAITIAN MOTIVATION#10	TSDR
4972958	INVESTING IN PEOPLE’S PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE	TSDR
4972928	BIZCHUM	TSDR
4972883	RUBES AND BEASTY	TSDR

May 27, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Design Basics Files Two New Copyright Lawsuits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Northern District of Indiana – Trademark counsel for Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed two new copyright infringement lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana alleging infringement of copyrighted architectural plans.

The first lawsuit, filed in the Fort Wayne Division, lists two Defendants, Westport Homes of Fort Wayne, Inc. and Westport Homes, Inc. They are accused of infringing Plaintiff’s “Plan No. 3090 – Jarrett,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration Nos. VA 624-154 and 624-153. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ infringing plans are marketed under the names Fairfield and Fairmont.

The second lawsuit was filed in the Hammond Division against Defendant Precision Homes, Inc. doing business as Precision Construction, Inc. and Precision Homes of Indiana, Inc. A second Plaintiff, W.L. Martin Home Designs LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, was listed in this lawsuit.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs state that Precision Homes offers six architectural plans, which are offered under the names Richmond, Raleigh, Durham, Kara, Abigail and Auburn, that infringe upon copyrighted works. Plaintiffs state that three copyrighted plans were infringed: “Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista,” Copyright Registration Nos. VA 282-203 & 752-162; “Plan No. 3588 – Stratman,” Copyright Registration Nos. VA 682-254, 682-253 & 756-041; and “Plan No. 24120 – Langlade,” Copyright Registration No. VA 1-073-400.

In both cases, the court is asked to order damages, equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

May 26, 2016

Trade Secret Law: Defend Trade Secrets Act Creates Federal Right of Action for Trade Secret Misappropriation.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Earlier this month, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) became federal law. The DTSA grants the owners of trade secrets the right to sue in federal court for misappropriation of a trade secret that is “related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” Previously, protection of trade secrets was offered only under state law, with most states having adopted a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”). The new federal law will supplement, not replace, those state laws.

The DTSA, while it mirrors the UTSA in many respects, adds several notable elements. In addition to creating original jurisdiction in federal district court over civil actions brought under the law, the DTSA also provides for the ex parte seizure of property where necessary to prevent the disclosure of the trade secret at issue in the lawsuit. This seizure is permitted only in “extraordinary circumstances,” including those situations where immediate and irreparable injury to the plaintiff will result if the seizure is not ordered. The party requesting an ex parte seizure must post security and, in cases where such a seizure is obtained wrongfully, the DTSA makes damages available to the defendant. Moreover, the Act recognizes the problem of international trade secret theft. The provision allowing for ex parte seizure of property is “expected to be used in instances in which a defendant is seeking to flee the country.”

The DTSA also includes a provision permitting the entry of an injunction prohibiting a person from accepting employment if there is a sufficient threat of misappropriation of a trade secret. In lesser cases, the individual may begin employment but will be subject to conditions enunciated by the court.

May 24, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana, a copyright attorney and professional photographer, filed a new batch of lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana.

In each lawsuit, Bell asserts infringement of his intellectual property rights under Copyright Registration No. VA0001785115. This copyright registration, issued by the U.S. Copyright Office, covers photos entitled “Indianapolis Photo” and “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo.” Each complaint also lists a count of unfair competition.

Defendants in the eight new lawsuits are as follows:

• Sunbelt Business Advisors of Indiana of Indianapolis, Indiana
• Marian University of Indianapolis, Indiana
• Top Class Moving, Inc. of Morton Grove, Illinois
• Profusion 360, LLC of La Mirada, California
• Cynthia Vivona and Megan Peyton, both of Fishers, Indiana
• Steve Knapp and Judgment Recovery of Indiana, both of Greenwood, Indiana
• AmWINS Group Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana

• Future Technology Solutions, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana

Bell seeks the maximum statutory damages allowable, contending in each lawsuit that Defendant(s) is/are willfully infringing “with oppression, fraud, and malice.” Bell seeks injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees from all Defendants.

Practice Tip: Bell, a frequent litigant, has been discussed here before. See:

• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

May 23, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Architecture Firm Files New Lawsuit Asserting Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska initiated litigation in the Southern District of Indiana. It alleges that Defendant Premier Homes of Southern Indiana, Inc. of Clarksville, Indiana infringed a copyrighted architectural plan.

The architectural work at issue in this lawsuit is Design Basic’s “Plan No. 6731 – Tollefson,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration Nos. VA 1-056-612 and 1-070-148.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Premier Homes infringed its copyrighted material by publishing, distributing, marketing, advertising and/or constructing in the marketplace designs offered as “Skylre” and “Skylre with Bonus Room.”

In this complaint, filed by Indiana copyright attorneys for Plaintiff, the court is asked to order equitable relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

May 19, 2016

Trade Secret Law: DTSA Now Provides More Protection for Whistleblowers

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) recently became federal law. This statute creates a federal right of action for misappropriation of trade secrets.

Among the provisions of the DTSA are new protections for whistleblowers. Under the DTSA, immunity is granted to persons who disclose a trade secret to a government official or attorney for the sole purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law. This immunity covers both civil and criminal liability under either federal or state trade secret law.

The DTSA also provides that trade secret information may be used in litigation by an employee who sues an employer alleging retaliation for having reported a suspected violation of law. The law requires that certain steps be taken during litigation to prevent disclosure of the trade secret.

May 18, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Bedding Wholesaler Sues Competitor Alleging Infringing Use of “Bamboo Luxury” Mark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Plaintiff Duke Imports Inc. of Angola, Indiana sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant All That Jazz Trading LLC of LaGrange, Indiana infringed its trademark for BAMBOO LUXURY.

Duke, a wholesaler of bedding, towels and related products asserts ownership to Trademark Registration No. 4,923,500 for BAMBOO LUXURY, which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Duke claims that it first used the trademark in connection with the sale of sheets and other bedding products in April 2015.

It contends that All That Jazz, which also wholesales bedding, towels and related products, has sold sheets using the BAMBOO LUXURY trademark. Duke states that Defendant used BAMBOO LUXURY with “actual and/or constructive knowledge of Duke Imports’ senior use and ownership” of the trademark and that the use was a willful infringement.

In a lawsuit filed by an Indiana trademark attorney, the following claims are asserted against Defendant:

• Count One: 15 U.S.C.§ 1125(a)

• Count Two: Common Law Unfair Competition

Plaintiff seeks damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs.