Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

April 9, 2015

Indiana Trademark Lawsuit: Bekins Sues Licensee of “Bekins” Trademark

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.

April 8, 2015

USPTO Appoints New Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.”

April 6, 2015

157 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in March 2015

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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

April 3, 2015

Copyright Law: Report on Technological Upgrades to Registration and Recordation Released

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.

April 2, 2015

Patent Office Issues 181 Patents To Indiana Citizens in March 2015

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 181 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in March 2015, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

PAT. NO.		Title
D725,756		Shower wall
D725,754		Tub
D725,741		Handheld shower
D725,581		Vehicle console portion
D725,411		Furniture piece
D725,409		Bedrail apron
8996878		Controlling an analysis system of biological samples
8996258		Vehicle safety system having methods and apparatus configurable for various vehicle geometries
8994932		Multimodal platform for nonlinear optical microscopy and microspectroscopy
8994396		Variation-tolerant self-repairing displays

March 30, 2015

U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker Announces Russell Slifer as Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker announced the appointment of Russell Slifer as the next Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Slifer left his role as the Director of the USPTO’s Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver. He began his new duties at USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, VA, on the day of the announcement.

While Director of the USPTO’s Denver office, which opened on June 30, 2014, Slifer served as the agency’s primary liaison with the innovation community in the Rocky Mountain Region. He was actively engaged in education and outreach initiatives, empowering the USPTO to develop programs, policies, and procedures to meet the needs of the Rocky Mountain West innovation community.

“Russell has an impressive track record of success across several disciplines and will be a tremendous asset to the USPTO,” said Secretary Pritzker. “His leadership will be instrumental in the USPTO’s efforts to foster economic growth and promote American innovation by reducing the patent application backlog and enhancing patent and trademark quality. I look forward to working with Russell in his new role, along with Director Lee and the rest of the USPTO team.”

March 27, 2015

Indiana Trade Secret Litigation: Precision Drone Sues Channel Masters for Misappropriating Trade Secrets

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana intellectual property lawyers for Precision Drone, LLC of Hamilton County, Indiana (“Precision”) commenced trade secret litigation in Hamilton County Superior Court alleging that Channel Masters, LLC of Wisconsin (“Channel”) breached its contract with Precision by improperly misappropriating and revealing trade secrets belonging to Precision.

Precision designs, engineers, manufactures and sells drones for use by farmers to monitor crops. It also develops and sells related software. Defendant Channel connects companies offering products to dealers of those products.

According to the complaint, in September 2014, Precision engaged Channel to sell the PaceSetter™ Drone to dealers of such products. To assist in Channel’s sales efforts, Precision provided Channel with equipment and training, some of which Precision contends is protected by Indiana trade secret law. As part of the sales agreement that the parties entered into, Precision states that Channel was prohibited from disclosing any of Precision’s confidential information without written authorization. The agreement also prohibited Channel from adversely interfering with Precision’s customers and prospective customers.

Plaintiff Precision alleges that, while Channel was working for Precision, it was also promoting and selling crop-imaging drones offered by AgriImage, a company that competes with Precision. Plaintiff also contends that Channel used Plaintiff’s images and training manual to demonstrate the competing AgriImage drones.

Precision claims copyright protection for the website that it uses to promote and advertise its products, as well as contending that at least one of its images was improperly displayed at a trade show by Channel, but the complaint listed no overt assertion of copyright infringement. The complaint, filed by Indiana intellectual property attorneys for Precision, instead alleges the following:

• Count I: Breach of Contract

• Count II: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Precision seeks judgment in its favor including damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Indiana copyright lawyers for Channel have removed the case to the Southern District of Indiana, arguing that such a removal is proper based both on federal question jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship.

March 26, 2015

Patent Law: Maintaining Your Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

All utility patents that issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) from applications filed on or after December 12, 1980 are subject to maintenance fees, which must be paid to maintain the patent in force. Information regarding which patents are subject to maintenance fees and the time of payment for maintenance fees is found in Chapter 2500: Maintenance Fees of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.

Maintenance fees are due three times during the life of a patent, and may be paid without surcharge at:

• Three to three and a half years after the date of issue for the first payment;

March 25, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Competing Indiana-Based RV Manufacturers Head to Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC (“Heartland”) of Elkhart, Indiana initiated a patent lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., (“Gulf Stream”) of Nappanee, Indiana infringed Patent Nos. 7,278,650; 7,878,545 and 8,162,352, each of which is titled “Travel Trailer Having Improved Turning Radius,” and which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Heartland manufactures recreational vehicles (“RVs”), including a type of travel trailer referred to as fifth-wheel travel trailers. Plaintiff contends that many of these fifth-wheel travel trailers incorporate and use one or more of the inventions of the patents-in-suit.

Gulf Stream allegedly manufactures RVs with some similar characteristics. These trailers are marketed under the names Canyon Trail, Sedona, and Ridgeline.

Heartland has sued Gulf Stream in federal court, claiming that Gulf Stream has infringed its patents. At issue are three patents: United States Patent Nos. 7,278,650; 7,878,545 and 8,162,352. According to Heartland, these patents “involve designs and technology relating to turning radius issues typically found in fifth wheel travel trailers, particularly when being towed by short-bed pick-up trucks, and Plaintiff’s Patents help avoid corner collisions between travel trailers and short-bed pick-up trucks, by changing the shape of the fifth wheel cap and/or chassis, as compared with prior caps and chassis.”

In its complaint, filed by Indiana patent lawyers, a single count – Patent Infringement – is alleged. That count covers all three patents-in-suit.

Plaintiff asks for a declaration of infringement of one or more claims of all three patents; equitable relief, including a permanent injunction; damages for the alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit; a declaration that any infringement was willful and increased damages, up to and including treble damages; and a declaration that the case is “exceptional” and, pursuant to that, an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses.

March 23, 2015

Copyright Law: Jury Finds “Blurred Lines” Infringes Copyright; Awards $7.3 Million

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Los Angeles, California – The eight-person jury in the highly publicized trial over the song “Blurred Lines” concluded that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke had infringed the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” and awarded almost $7.4 million to Gaye’s family.

The 2013 smash hit “Blurred Lines” has been the subject of copyright infringement litigation for about a year and a half. The family of Gaye, who was known at the peak of his career as the Prince of Motown, privately approached Williams and Thicke with allegations of copyright infringement. Nona and Frankie Gaye, two of Gaye’s children, contended that “Blurred Lines” infringed Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up.” Copyright attorneys for Williams and Thicke responded by filing a lawsuit under the Declaratory Judgment Act, asking the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to declare that they had not infringed. The Gaye family countersued, asking for more than $25 million for the copyright infringement that was alleged.

Over the eight-day trial, copyright lawyers for Thicke and Williams emphasized two points in particular. First, they argued, any protection under copyright law extended only to the compositional elements in the sheet music for “Got to Give It Up.” Other elements of “Blurred Lines,” such as the percussion and the singing, they contended, were not protected by the copyright issued by the U.S. Copyright Office.