The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 132 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2016 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| Registration No. | Word Mark | Click To View | |
| 4882521 | VIEW | ||
| 4893058 | TENDERNEEDS FERTILITY | VIEW | |
| 4893035 | FUN TIME FOR KIDS…FREE TIME FOR PARENTS! | VIEW | |
| 4893016 | GRANDPA’S | VIEW | |
| 4892928 | ODDBIRD | VIEW | |
| 4892743 | BLACK DIAMOND | VIEW | |
| 4892254 | MYCRIMP | VIEW | |
| 4892123 | LOCAL UNIVERSE | VIEW |
Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana copyright and trademark attorneys for Plaintiff The Rough Notes Company, Inc. (“Rough Notes”) of Carmel, Indiana commenced a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.
The Defendant, That’s Great News, LLC (“Great News”) of Cheshire, Connecticut, is accused of infringing U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,585,340, which has been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as unfair competition, false designation of origin, and dilution under the Lanham Act. Allegations of copyright infringement of material protected by Copyright Registrations Registration Nos. TX 7-988-447 and TX 7-988-464, as well as other related claims, have also been made.
Plaintiff Rough Notes is a publisher of print and online magazines. It indicates that it has used its “Rough Notes” trademark since 1878 and that the trademark was registered in 2002. Rough Notes contends that Defendant Great News has violated it copyright, trademark and other intellectual property rights by producing samples of commemorative plaques that feature protected content owned by Rough Notes and distributing samples via e-mail to solicit the purchase of a plaque.
In this federal complaint, filed with the court by Indiana copyright and trademark lawyers for Rough Notes, the following causes of action are alleged:
• Copyright Infringement
• Federal Unfair Competition & False Designation of Origin
• Federal Trademark Infringement
• Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Federal Trademark Dilution
• Common Law Unfair Competition• Unjust Enrichment
Rough Notes seeks equitable relief; statutory damages, including up to $150,000 for willful infringement; and reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees.
Practice Tip: Plaintiff may have difficulty overcoming the defense of nominative fair use of a trademark in this lawsuit. That doctrine provides that, as a matter of law, nominative use of a mark — where the only word reasonably available to describe a particular thing is pressed into service — lies outside the strictures of trademark law. Defendant may argue that its use of “Rough Notes” on its commemorative plaques was permissible as those are the only words reasonably available to adequately describe a plaque displaying an article featured in a “Rough Notes” publication.
Continue reading
Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for Plaintiff Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana (“Lilly”) filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 patent”), which was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
This patent infringement lawsuit asserts unlawful behavior by two Defendants. Specifically, the complaint states that Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. of Princeton, New Jersey is acting on behalf of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. of Hyderabad, India in seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Lilly’s ALIMTA®, a chemotherapy agent used for the treatment of various types of cancer. Lilly further contends that the two Defendants are agents and/or alter-egos of one another.
Lilly states that unless Defendants are “enjoined from infringing the ‘209 patent, actively inducing infringement of the ‘209 patent, and contributing to the infringement by others of the ‘209 patent, Lilly will suffer irreparable injury.”
This lawsuit, filed by Indiana patent lawyers for Lilly, lists a single count: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209. Lilly seeks a declaratory judgment, equitable relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.
Patent protection for Bitcoin and other blockchain based crypto currencies is a growing issue, as discussed in the February 1, 2016 article by American Banker Magazine, “Crypto Colonizing: Bank of America’s Blockchain-Patent Strategy.”
On being asked my opinion concerning Bank of America’s blockchain patent push, I responded, “”The scope [of the patent application] would have to be limited to the specific new feature that they add,” said Paul Overhauser, managing partner at Overhauser Law Offices, a firm that specializes in intellectual property cases. “They could not get patent protection so broad as to give them any patent rights to the original source code idea of having a blockchain.”
To read the full article, click here.
Northern District of Indiana – Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed six lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that multiple Defendants committed copyright infringement by constructing buildings based on plans derived from Plaintiff’s copyrighted works.
Design Basics is engaged in the business of creating, marketing, publishing and licensing the use of architectural works and technical drawings of those works. It has sued multiple Defendants, most of them home designers and builders, for copyright infringement.
The Defendant in the first lawsuit is Big C Lumber Co. Inc. of South Bend, Indiana. Two Defendants are listed in the second lawsuit: Carriage Place Homes, Inc., f/k/a Carriage Properties, Inc., d/b/a Bridle Homes and Bridle Homes, Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana.
The third lawsuit lists multiple Defendants: Culver Construction, Inc., d/b/a Culver Remodeling, Culver Design Build, Culver Custom Homes, and Hallmark Homes of Michiana; Culver Development Corporation d/b/a Property Management Services; Wes Culver Realty, LLC d/b/a KW Commercial and Industrial, Wes Culver Auctions, and Wes Culver Home Team; and New Paris Development Company, LLC of Goshen, Indiana.
In the fourth lawsuit, Lancia Homes, Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana, which does business as Lancia Construction, Springmill Development, Lancia Real Estate, Lancia Homes, Springmill Wood Development and Waterford Enterprises, is named. Quality Crafted Homes, Inc. of Harlan, Indiana is the sole Defendant in the fifth lawsuit.
The final lawsuit lists Windsor Homes, Inc., d/b/a Windsor Homes by Jeff Gilmore; Windsor Construction, LLC; Windsor Construction, Inc; and Windsor, Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana as Defendants.
While the details vary among the different lawsuits, the allegation at the core of each complaint is infringement of one or more of Design Basics’ copyrighted architectural designs by Defendants, with each lawsuit complaining of Defendants’ “construction and sale” of structures that infringe Plaintiff’s copyrights. Design Basics seeks equitable relief, damages, costs and attorney fees.
The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 119 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2016, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:
| Pat No. | Title | ||
| 1 | D748,181 | Jib | |
| 2 | D748,069 | Set top box | |
| 3 | D747,901 | Periodical stand with monitor | |
| 4 | 9,246,370 | Electric motor stator housing interference gap reducing method and apparatus | |
| 5 | 9,246,207 | Antenna aiming system and method for broadband wireless access | |
| 6 | 9,245,503 | Musical percussion support stands and related devices and methods | |
| 7 | 9,245,438 | Water leak detector for a pipe having a retention reservoir | |
| 8 | 9,244,481 | Vehicle pedal assembly with hysteresis assembly | |
| 9 | 9,244,077 | Method system and device for assessing insulin sensitivity | |
| 10 | 9,244,060 | Site localization and methods for monitoring treatment of disturbed blood vessels |
Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana trademark attorneys for Plaintiff Indy Founders LLC d/b/a Verge of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a trademark infringement lawsuit with the court in the Southern District of Indiana. The lawsuit alleges that Vox Media, Inc. and The Verge Group LLC (“TVG”) infringed the VERGE trademark, Registration No. 4,153,192, which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Indy Founders is in the business of creating and offering online publications and websites, as well as similar services, for startup technology entrepreneurs, investors, and collaborators. It states that it holds a federal registration on VERGE as a trademark and that the VERGE trademark has been used since at least as early as January 2011.
Defendant Vox Media is a partner and owner of Defendant TVG. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are engaged in a business similar to Plaintiff’s and that Defendants use the VERGE trademark in connection with their business, THE VERGE, and in their business’ domain name, http://www.theverge.com/. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ use of THE VERGE to identify their goods and services is unlawful.
In this Indiana trademark lawsuit, filed with the court by trademark lawyers for Plaintiff, the following claims are made:
• Count I: Trademark Infringement
• Count II: False Designation Of Origin
• Count III: Unfair Competition
• Count IV: Declaratory Judgment
• Count V: Indiana Crime Victims Act [Forgery under IC §35-43-5-2]
• Count VI: Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief• Count VII: Corrective Advertising
Indy Founders seeks a declaratory judgment, equitable relief, actual damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.
Indianapolis Indiana – Following a Markman hearing, Judge Sarah Evans Barker considered 18 disputed terms in five patents owned by Plaintiff Bonutti Research, Inc. of Effingham, Illinois and licensed exclusively to Plaintiff Joint Active Systems, Inc., also of Effingham, Illinois. Fourteen of the terms were construed. The court held that the remaining four needed no further construction.
The patents-in-suit are: U.S. Patent No. 5,848,979, U.S. Patent No. 7,955,286, U.S. Patent No. 7,404,804, U.S. Patent No. 7,112,179 and U.S. Patent No. 8,784,343, which had been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It is alleged that Defendant Lantz Medical, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed those patents.
The following terms were construed by the court:
• “drive means” (construed in two different contexts)
• “a main gear which is connected with said first cuff means and is rotatable with said first cuff means relative to said base”
• “first extension member”
• “second extension member having an arcuate shape extending therefrom”
• “arcuate shape”
• “arcuate path”
• “travels along an arcuate path through the first extension member”
• “removably attachable to the finger”
• “curved path”
• “a first arm member for coupling to the first body portion and defining a curved path”
• “movable along the curved path”
• “operatively coupled”
• “drive assembly”• “lockout element”
The court determined that no further construction was necessary for the following terms:
• “base”
• “gear means”
• “second gear is at least partially disposed in a recess in said base”• “bending mechanism”
Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Plaintiffs Cummins Ltd., headquartered in the United Kingdom, and Cummins Inc. of Columbus, Indiana commenced patent infringement litigation in the Southern District of Indiana. The Defendants are ADP Distributors USA, Inc. of Tempe, Arizona and ADP Distributors, Inc., headquartered in British Columbia, Canada. They are accused of infringing two of Plaintiffs’ U.S. patents, both of which have been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,401,563 (“the ‘563 patent”), entitled “Actuating Mechanism For A Slidable Nozzle Ring” and U.S. Patent No. 5,941,684 (“the ‘684 patent”), entitled “Variable Geometry Turbine.” The ‘563 patent is directed to certain components of a turbocharger or turbomachine and to a linkage assembly for linking together certain components within a turbocharger or turbomachine, while the claims of the ‘684 patent “are generally directed to a turbine, such as one used in connection with a turbocharger, having one or more springs which provide non-linear length to spring force characteristics on a displaceable sidewall.”
Plaintiff Cummins Ltd. claims to own all right, title and interest in both patents. Plaintiff Cummins Inc. states that it is an exclusive licensee of the ‘563 and ‘684 patents for sales of turbochargers and turbocharger components.
Defendants’ accused products include the Rotomaster Turbocharger, offered under model number H1550112N, and a Rotomaster replacement part. Defendants are accused of acting individually or in concert with others or each other to advertise for sale, offer for sale, import, sell and/or use these products in the U.S.
This federal lawsuit, filed with the trial court by patent lawyers for the Plaintiffs, alleges the following claims:
• Count I: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,401,563
• Count II: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,941,684
• Count III: Inducement to Infringe the ‘563 Patent
• Count IV: Contributory Infringement of the ‘563 Patent
Plaintiffs seek equitable relief; damages, including treble damages; interest; costs and attorneys’ fees.
Hammond, Indiana – Trademark litigation commenced in the Western District of Michigan in 2013 was transferred to the Northern District of Indiana yesterday.
This federal lawsuit, filed by trademark attorneys for Plaintiffs Texas Roadhouse, Inc. and Texas Roadhouse Delaware LLC, both of Louisville, Kentucky, alleges infringement of U.S. Service Mark Reg. No. 1,833,533, U.S. Service Mark Reg. No. 2,231,309, and U.S. Service Mark Reg. No. 2,250,966. These marks have been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The Defendants listed in the Michigan complaint were Texas Corral Restaurants, Inc.; Switzer Properties, LLC; Texcor, Inc.; Texas Corral Restaurant II, Inc.; T.C. of Michigan City, Inc.; T.C. of Kalamazoo, Inc.; Chicago Roadhouse Concepts, LLC; Paul Switzer; Victor Spina; and John Doe Corp. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer venue, with the Michigan court, which was granted. The lawsuit will continue in the Northern District of Indiana.
Plaintiffs, via their trademark lawyers, asserted the following claims:
• Count I: Trade Dress Infringement
• Count II: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count III: Trademark Infringement Under Michigan Statutory Law
• Count IV: Trademark Infringement Under Indiana Statutory Law
• Count V: Trademark Infringement Under Common Law
• Count VI: Copyright Infringement• Count VII: Unfair Competition Under Michigan and Indiana Common Law
Texas Roadhouse seeks equitable relief; damages, including punitive damages; costs and attorney fees.
