By

Picture04222015.png

Indianapolis, Indiana – An intellectual property attorney for G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC (“G & G”) of Campbell, California initiated a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Elsa Valdez and Tikal #2, Inc., both of Indianapolis, Indiana, illegally intercepted and broadcast the Saul Alvarez v. Austin Trout fight program (the “Program”).

G & G states that it holds exclusive nationwide rights to the commercial, closed-circuit distribution of the Program. It has sued Elsa Valdez and Tikal #2, both individually and doing business as Sabor Latino Bar a/k/a Johnny’s Park Inn Restaurant & Bar, under the Communications Act of 1934 and the Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

As in another recent lawsuit brought by G & G alleging interception, Defendants have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the Program on Saturday, April 20, 2013 without an appropriate license. Regarding the claim under 47 U.S.C. §605, G & G’s Indiana federal complaint alleges that with “full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted…[and] exhibited” without authorization, “each and every one of the above named Defendants . . . did unlawfully … exhibit the Program” for the purpose of commercial advantage and/or private financial gain. A count of conversion is also included. The complaint asserts that Defendants’ acts were “willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff.”

In the complaint, the intellectual property lawyer for G & G listed the following counts and requests for redress:

• Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605. For this count, G & G states that it is entitled to (a) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount of $100,000, and (b) the recovery of all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Later in the complaint, the intellectual property attorney for G & G requests statutory damages of $110,000.
• Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 553. For this count, G & G asks the court for (a) statutory damages of $60,000 for each willful violation; (b) the recovery of all costs; and (c) and in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorneys’ fees.

• Count III: Conversion. For this count, the court is asked to order both compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants as the result of the Defendants’ allegedly egregious conduct, theft, and conversion of the program and deliberate injury to Plaintiff. G & G also seeks costs and attorneys’ fees under this count.

Continue reading

By

alvarezTroutPicture04202015.png

Indianapolis, Indiana – An intellectual property attorney for G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC (“G & G”) of Campbell, California filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Zeferino Alvarez and Sabor Bohemio, LLC, both d/b/a El Bohemio Bar of Indianapolis, Indiana illegally intercepted and broadcast the Saul Alvarez v. Austin Trout fight program (the “Program”).

G & G states that it holds exclusive nationwide rights to the commercial, closed-circuit distribution of the Program. It has sued Zeferino Alvarez and Sabor Bohemio, LLC, both individually and doing business as El Bohemio Bar under the Communications Act of 1934 and The Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

Specifically, Defendants have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the Program at issue on Saturday, April 20, 2013 without an appropriate license. Regarding the claim under 47 U.S.C. §605, the Complaint alleges that with “full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted…[and] exhibited” without authorization, “each and every one of the above named Defendants . . . did unlawfully … exhibit the Program” for the purpose of commercial advantage and/or private financial gain. A count of conversion is also included. The complaint asserts that Defendants’ acts were “willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff.”

In the complaint, the intellectual property lawyer for G & G listed the following counts and requests for redress:

• Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605. For this count, G & G requests (a) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $100,000.00, and (b) the recovery of all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

• Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 553. For this count, G & G asks the court for (a) statutory damages of $60,000 for each willful violation; (b) the recovery of all costs; and (c) and in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorneys’ fees.

• Count III: Conversion. For this count, the court is asked to order both compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants as the result of the Defendants’ allegedly egregious conduct, theft, and conversion of the program and deliberate injury to G&G.

Continue reading

By

Picture04162015.png

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the directed verdict of Special Judge William E. Alexa of Porter Superior Court. Writing for the Indiana appellate court, Judge John Baker concluded that the trial court had not erred in ruling that Defendants’ information was insufficiently private to constitute trade secrets.

Appellant-Plaintiff Think Tank Software Development Corporation, d/b/a Think Tank Networking Technologies Group and Think Tank Information Systems (“Think Tank”) is engaged in computer-related business activities, including systems and network engineering, problem solving, systems design, implementation, sales, client training, and computer maintenance. During 2001 and 2002, multiple employees left Think Tank and joined its competitor, Chester, Inc.

In 2002, Think Tank sued Chester as well as former Think Tank employees Mike Heinhold, John Mario, Joel Parker, Thomas Guelinas, Jon Meyer, Daniel Curry, Eric M. Wojciechoswki, Michael Gee, Philip Ryan Turner and Carl Zuhl alleging: 1) breach of the covenant not to compete, 2) breach of the confidentiality clause, 3) breach of the agreement not to solicit its employees for other work, 3) tortious interference with contracts, 4) misappropriation of trade secrets, 5) tortious interference with business relationships, 6) unjust enrichment, and 7) defamation. Think Tank also included a claim for unfair competition against Chester.

After much litigation, including two prior appeals to the Indiana Court of Appeals, this Indiana trade secret lawsuit was again heard by the trial court on the remaining claims: misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contracts, and breach of the covenant not to compete and confidentiality provisions.

The most interesting of the claims in this lawsuit is Think Tank’s assertion of misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants moved for a directed verdict on that count, as well as all other claims against them. The trial court granted the directed verdict on Think Tank’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, reasoning that, “[it] is a question of law for the Court relative to what is and what is not a trade secret. Plaintiff has failed to show that the information obtained was ever, in law, a trade secret.”

Shortly after this ruling, Think Tank sought review a third time from the Indiana Court of Appeals. It claimed that its trade secrets included: 1) the nature and design of its technical solutions; 2) the design of its customers’ computer systems; 3) pricing; and 4) customer identities. Think Tank further argued that the trial court could not determine as a matter of law whether information was a trade secret under Indiana Code section 24-2-3-2, which defines a trade secret as:

information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(1) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

 

(2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

The Indiana appellate court declined to address Think Tank’s argument whether a trial court could determine as a matter of law whether information was a trade secret under Indiana law. However, it concluded that Think Tank had failed in its burden to avoid the directed verdict: “as a matter of law, Think Tank failed to produce enough evidence to allow a reasonable fact finder to determine that the proffered information was trade secrets.” Specifically, it found that Think Tank failed to show that any of the information alleged to be trade secrets was not generally known to or ascertainable by the public.

The appellate court agreed with the Indiana trial court that: 1) the computer certifications and intellectual capital that Think Tank possessed was readily available information; 2) knowledge of customers’ computer systems and current or future needs was readily ascertainable, as such information belonged to the customers in question; and 3) pricing information did not constitute a trade secret, as it too was readily available from the customers. Thus, the information was not a trade secret.

The Indiana appellate court continued that Think Tank appeared not to be trying to protect its trade secrets, but instead to prevent competition. Such a goal, the court said, might be effectuated by a non-competition agreement. However, the use of Indiana legislation designed to protect trade secrets could not properly be stretched to hinder the use of information that appeared to be generally known or readily obtained from another source.

Continue reading

By

EFF04152015.png

 

 

 

 

San Francisco, California – The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) invalidated key claims in the so-called “podcasting patent” last week after a petition for review from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”). This decision significantly curtails the ability of a patent troll to threaten podcasters big and small.

“We’re grateful for all the support of our challenge to this patent. Today is a big victory for the podcasting community” said EFF Staff Attorney Daniel Nazer, who also holds the Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents. “We’re glad the Patent Office recognized what we all knew: ‘podcasting’ had been around for many years and this company does not own it.”

The “podcasting patent” became big news in 2013, when a company called Personal Audio, LLC, began demanding licensing fees from podcasters including comedian Adam Carolla and three major television networks. Personal Audio doesn’t do podcasting itself, but instead used its patent to claim infringement and collect payouts from actual creators.

In petitions filed with Patent Office, EFF showed that Personal Audio did not invent anything new before it filed its patent application, and, in fact, other people were podcasting for years previously. Earlier examples of podcasting include Internet pioneer Carl Malamud‘s “Geek of the Week” online radio show and online broadcasts by CNN and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

“We have a lot to celebrate here,” said EFF Staff Attorney Vera Ranieri. “But unfortunately, our work to protect podcasting is not done. Personal Audio continues to seek patents related to podcasting. We will continue to fight for podcasters, and we hope the Patent Office does not give them any more weapons to shake down small podcasters.”

EFF partnered with attorneys working pro bono and the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard‘s Berkman Center for Internet and Society to craft the petition for review with the USPTO.

This edited article was provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group which advocates for innovators and users of technology. The article has been licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.

This should not be taken as legal advice specific to any individual network operator. If you want such advice, please consult a copyright attorney.

Continue reading

By

redwall04132015.png

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana copyright attorneys for Redwall Live Corporation (“Redwall”) of Indianapolis, Indiana asked the Southern District of Indiana to dismiss Redwall’s own copyright litigation. Redwall’s complaint alleged that ESG Security, Inc. (“ESG”), also of Indianapolis, Indiana, infringed the logo that Redwall had designed for ESG. That logo has been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office. The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Redwall will be permitted to refile the non-copyright counts in Indiana state court but the copyright count was dismissed with prejudice.

Redwall is a consulting and design-services firm engaged in the business of strategic branding and advertising. Its services include developing a clear message and a unique visual image as well as developing brand value for its clients.

In its 2013 complaint against ESG, Redwall stated that it had been hired by ESG to reinvent ESG’s brand. As part of this project, it created a new logo design for ESG, which was copyrighted under Registration No. VA 1-874-872. Redwall asserted that ESG had failed to pay Redwall in full for the work done and that ESG nonetheless had continued to use Redwall’s copyrighted logo on a variety of items. Indiana copyright lawyers for Redwall sued for copyright infringement under federal law, as well as breach of contract and unjust enrichment under Indiana state law.

Redwall later decided that pursuing the copyright portion of the claim was not worth the expense. As the Judge Sarah Evans Barker put it, they concluded that “the game is not worth the candle.” Copyright attorneys for Redwall asked the court to dismiss the copyright complaint without prejudice. Attorneys for ESG asked the court instead to dismiss Redwall’s copyright claim with prejudice.

In evaluating Redwall’s motion to dismiss, the court cited its discretion to attach conditions to the dismissal of a lawsuit – “the quid for the quo of allowing the plaintiff to dismiss his suit without being prevented by the doctrine of res judicata from bringing the same suit again.” The court noted that Redwall seemed to have added a less-than-robust copyright claim as leverage to obtain its true goal of payment under its contract with ESG. Judge Barker concluded that to allow Redwall to withdraw that copyright claim without any res judicata consequences would reward that gamesmanship. The court determined that, as a proper exercise of its discretion, it would dismiss Redwall’s copyright claim with prejudice but permit Redwall’s remaining state-law claims to be refiled in state court.

Practice Tip: Filing a copyright lawsuit can be perilous, as the plaintiff may later be unable to dismiss that litigation without incurring liability for the defendant’s attorney fees. As the Seventh Circuit held in Riviera Distribs., Inc. v. Jones, a voluntary dismissal of a copyright claim by the plaintiff – if that claim is dismissed with prejudice – is sufficient to trigger the duty of the plaintiff to pay the attorney’s fees incurred defending against the allegations of copyright infringement: “[Defendant] Midwest obtained a favorable judgment. That this came about when [Plaintiff] Riviera threw in the towel does not make Midwest less the victor than it would have been had the judge granted summary judgment or a jury returned a verdict in its favor. Riviera sued; Midwest won; no more is required.” Similarly here, ESG qualifies as a “prevailing party” under the Copyright Act and is thus presumptively entitled to attorneys’ fees for the litigation of that claim under 17 U.S.C. § 505.

Continue reading

By

PUPicture.png

Tippecanoe County, Indiana -An Indiana trade secret attorney for the National Association of College Stores Inc. (“NACS”), an Ohio-based organization, sued Purdue University of West Lafayette, Indiana in Tippecanoe Superior Court seeking full disclosure of an agreement between Purdue and Amazon.com Inc.

Earlier this year, Amazon opened its first brick-and-mortar store on the campus of Purdue University. This store, which allows merchandise to be both picked up and dropped off, was promoted as a way to save Purdue students money. Initial estimates suggest that the Purdue-Amazon partnership has resulted in savings of more than 40% for students.

In response to this addition to Purdue’s campus, NACS requested a copy of the agreement between Amazon and Purdue under Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”), codified as Ind. Code § 5-14-3-1 et. seq. Purdue released only a redacted copy, stating that Amazon considered the omitted material to be protectable as trade secrets, which are defined under APRA as:

Continue reading

By

BekinsTruck.png

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana trademark lawyer for Wheaton Van Lines, Inc. and Bekins Van Lines, Inc., both of Indianapolis, Indiana (collectively, “Bekins”), filed a trademark-infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Faulk-Collier Moving & Storage, LLC and David Vaughn, both of Louisiana, infringed the trademark BEKINS®, which has been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office as Trademark Registration No. 2427605.

Faulk-Collier, a moving-and-storage company in business since 1932, has been sued by Bekins for both trademark infringement and breach of contract. Bekins, which was founded in 1891, contends that it has made extensive use of the Bekins trademark, which it asserts has become both incontestable and famous. Bekins’ uses, it states, include inclusion in all of Bekins’ advertising materials, as well as being emblazoned on the side of all of the trucks, vans and trailers operating under Bekins’ authority for over ten years. Bekins has also sued Vaughn for more than $73,000, alleging that he personally guaranteed payment to Bekins.

In its Indiana trademark complaint, Bekins states that, in February 2014, it entered into an agreement with Faulk-Collier under which Faulk-Collier would serve as an interstate household agent for Bekins. Bekins further claims that, due to uncured breaches of that agreement by Faulk-Collier, Bekins terminated the arrangement in October 2014. After terminating the agreement, Bekins advised Defendants that they must cease all use of logos and trademarks owned by Bekins, including the removal of the Bekins trademark from all advertising, trucks, equipment, websites, and similar.

Nonetheless, contends Bekins, Faulk-Collier has continued to advertise moving services under the name “Bekins.” The accused uses include advertising on social media as well as operating numerous pieces of equipment in interstate commerce which bear one or more trademarks owned by Bekins. Bekins states that these uses by Faulk-Collier are unauthorized.

This federal lawsuit followed. In its complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark attorney, Bekins asserts the following:

• Count I – Breach of Contract
• Count II – Account Stated
• Count III – Federal Trademark Infringement

• Count IV – Federal and State Unfair Competition/Trademark Dilution

Bekins asks the court to enter preliminary and permanent injunctions; award Bekins monetary damages, statutory and otherwise, and punitive damages; and order Defendants to pay Bekins’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

Continue reading

By

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Commerce‘s United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) announced last week the appointment of Meryl Hershkowitz as Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations. In her new position, Hershkowitz will oversee the examination and processing of applications throughout trademark operations.

“Meryl Hershkowitz is a talented, committed professional who is going to excel in her position as Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Michelle K. Lee. “Her extensive background at the USPTO gives her a unique expertise from which I believe her whole team will benefit.”

“Meryl has done a stellar job here at the USPTO in a variety of roles over the years,” said Commissioner of Trademarks Mary Boney Denison. “She has an impressive track record of success in Trademark Operations. She has much to offer the agency and its customers in her new role.”

Continue reading

By

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 157 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in March 2015 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No. Word Mark Click To View
4708210 BRING ON THE LIGHT Live
4708079 INDIANA GRAND RACING · CASINO Live
4708012 KST Live
4707919 THUMBSUCKERZ Live
4707916 INTELLIVIEW Live
4707767 ELEMENT THREE Live
4707669 BLOM Live

Continue reading

By

The Register of Copyrights has released a report from the Special Projects Team responsible for studying technology issues and business improvements related to the Copyright Office‘s services. The report was delivered to the Register by the Copyright Office Chief Information Officer Doug Ament, who chaired the multi-year analysis. The effort was one of 10 areas of focus publicly announced by the Office in Priorities and Special Projects of the United States Copyright Office: 2011-2013.

The Office’s technology infrastructure impacts all of the Office’s key services and is the single greatest factor in its ability to administer copyright registration, recordation services, and statutory licenses effectively. The report thus provides a number of recommendations that, if adopted, could significantly improve the Office’s operations and interactions with the public.

Contact Information
Indiana Intellectual Property: IP Litigation, Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights
  • Seventh Circuit
  • Northern District of Indiana
  • Southern District of Indiana
Paul B. Overhauser
Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Greenfield
18 E Main St #202
Greenfield, IN 46140
Phone: 317.467.9100
Fax: 866.283.8549
Indianapolis
101 W Ohio St #2000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.891.1500
Fax: 866.283.8549

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design