Source: https://www.iniplaw.org/category/counterfeit/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-06-18 17:39:27
Document Index: 795318170

Matched Legal Cases: ['§32', '§1114', '§32', '§1114', '§43', '§1125', '§43', '§1125', '§43', '§1125', '§ 501', '§ 1114', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§1117', '§1114', '§504', '§1117', '§1117', '§1117']

Counterfeit Category Archives — Page 2 of 4 — Indiana Intellectual Property Law News Published by Patent and Trademark Litigation Attorney — Copyright Infringement Lawyer — Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Indiana Trademark Litigation: Shipshewana Spice Company Sues Amish Farms for Use of “Happy Salt” Trademark
Shipshewana, Indiana – Indiana trademark lawyers for Plaintiff Kevin Horn, sole proprietor of Shipshewana Spice Company of Warsaw, Indiana, filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Bob Wilson d/b/a Amish Farms and Shipshewana’s Best Spice Co. of Millersburg, Indiana infringed the trademark “HAPPY SALT,” Trademark Registration No. 4,241,663, which was granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Horn also alleges trademark counterfeiting, false description, trademark dilution and unfair competition.
Plaintiff Horn of Shipshewana Spice states in his intellectual property complaint that his company has been selling spices and other seasonings since 1994 both locally in north-central Indiana and online at www.shipshewanaspicecompany.com. Plaintiff further claims that the trade name “HAPPY SALT” has been associated with his spices since 1994. A trademark registration for this mark in International Class 30 for “Seasonings, namely, Seasonings in salt” was granted by the USPTO on November 13, 2012.
Defendant Wilson, alleged to be the operator of the website www.amishfarms.com, is accused of offering counterfeit goods offered as “HAPPY SALT SEASONING,” “HAPPY HEARTS SALT FREE SEASONING” and “HAPPY SEA SALT SEASONING.” Plaintiff also protests the use by Defendant of the business name “Shipshewana’s Best Spice Company,” which it contends is nearly identical to Plaintiff’s business name, “Shipshewana Spice Company”.
• First Claim: Trademark Infringement Under Lanham Act §32; 15 U.S.C. §1114
• Second Claim: Trademark Counterfeiting Under Lanham Act §32; 15 U.S.C. §1114
• Third Claim: False Description Under Lanham Act §43; 15 U.S.C. §1125
• Fourth Claim: Trademark Dilution Under Lanham Act §43; 15 U.S.C. §1125
• Fifth Claim: Unfair Competition Under Lanham Act §43; 15 U.S.C. §1125
Horn seeks equitable relief along with damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.
Posted in: Counterfeit, New Litigation, Trademark Dilution, Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
Indiana Copyright Litigation: Microsoft Asserts Copyright, Trademark Infringement by Ace Recycling
Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana copyright and trademark attorney for Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) of Redmond, Washington sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Ace Recycling, Inc. and Kevin Cawood, both of Fort Wayne, Indiana (collectively, “Defendants”), infringed copyrighted material belonging to Microsoft. Defendants have also been accused of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false description and representation, counterfeiting and unfair competition. Microsoft seeks damages, an accounting, the imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendants’ illegal profits, and injunctive relief.
Microsoft’s software products, which have been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office, include Microsoft Windows XP and Microsoft Vista, both of which are operating systems for desktop and computers.
Also at issue are the following trademarks and service marks belonging to Microsoft:
•	“MICROSOFT,” Trademark and Service Mark Registration No. 1,200,236, for computer programs and computer programming services;
•	“MICROSOFT,” Trademark Registration No. 1,256,083, for computer hardware and software manuals, newsletters, and computer documentation;
Microsoft contends that Defendants advertised, marketed, installed, offered and distributed unauthorized copies of Microsoft software, despite Microsoft’s claims that their actions infringed Microsoft’s intellectual property rights. Specifically, Microsoft asserts that, in April 2013, Defendants distributed to an investigator refurbished computer systems with unauthorized copies of Windows XP installed on them. In response, in June 2013, Microsoft asked Defendants to cease and desist from making and distributing infringing copies of Microsoft software. Microsoft alleges that, in May 2014, Defendants again distributed to an investigator a refurbished computer system with an unauthorized copy of a Windows operating system – in that case, Windows Vista – on it.
Microsoft contends that these are not isolated incidents but, instead, indicate Defendants’ pattern of acting in reckless disregard of Microsoft’s registered copyrights, trademarks and service marks.
In this Indiana lawsuit, Microsoft’s copyright and trademark attorney makes the following claims:
•	Copyright Infringement – 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq.
•	Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114
•	False Designation Of Origin, False Description And Representation – 15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq.
Microsoft asks for a judgment of copyright infringement; of trademark and service mark infringement; that Defendants have committed and are committing acts of false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, and false or misleading representation against Microsoft, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); that Defendants have engaged in unfair competition in violation of Indiana common law; and that Defendants have otherwise injured the business reputation and business of Microsoft.
Microsoft also asks for the impoundment of all counterfeit and infringing copies of purported Microsoft products; the imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendants’ illegal profits; injunctive relief; damages, including enhanced damages; and costs and attorneys’ fees.
Posted in: Copyright Infringement, Counterfeit, False Designation of Origin, Indiana State Law, New Litigation, Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
Updated: January 28, 2015 1:30 pm
Indiana Trademark Litigation: Zip-A-Tee Sues for Declaration of Non-Infringement and Damages
Hammond, Indiana – James Cross acting pro se, and Zip-A-Tee Inc. of Michigan City, Indiana sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Coalition to Advance the Protection of Sports Logos (“CAPS”) of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs’ use of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property, including both trademark and patent protection. Also named as Defendant is Debevoise & Plimpton LLP of New York City.
Zip-A-Tee owns Trademark Registration No. 4,343,916, which was registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Patent Nos. D580,633 and D581,136, which were also issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
In 2012 and 2013, CAPS sent several letters to Zip-A-Tee claiming trademark infringement and counterfeiting by Plaintiffs of various trademarked sports logos. Among CAPS’ assertions was that Cross and/or Zip-A-Tee had offered for sale jerseys bearing “Lakers” and “Bulls” trademarks. CAPS also contacted GoDaddy.com and other website-hosting companies asserting that CAPS’ intellectual property had been infringed. In response, those companies apparently suspended Zip-A-Tee’s websites.
Cross, acting as his own Indiana trademark counsel, has sued Defendants on behalf of himself and the corporation. He makes the following claims for relief:
• Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
Plaintiffs ask for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs also ask to be awarded statutory damages of $700 million “for each website removed by CAPS member Infringement request and claims [sic]” as well as $500,000 “per domain name change.” Additionally, Plaintiffs request an award of punitive damages of $5 billion due to the “willfully [sic], wanton, egregiously [sic] and insidious” nature of Defendants’ conduct.
Posted in: Counterfeit, License, New Litigation and Trademark Infringement
Updated: March 8, 2018 9:09 am
Indiana Patent and Copyright Litigation: Lake Lite Sues Multiple Defendants for Patent and Copyright Infringement
Fort Wayne, Indiana – A patent and copyright attorney for Lake Lite Inc. of Laotto, Indiana filed a complaint in the Northern District of Indiana asserting, inter alia, that Universal Forest Products, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan (“UFP”); Universal Consumer Products, Inc., also of Grand Rapids, Michigan (“UCP”); and Maine Ornamental, LLC of Greene, Maine infringed “Solar Dock Light” and “Low Profile Solar LED Lamp,” Patent Nos. D697,246 and 8,845,126, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.
Lake Lite is in the business of designing and selling dock lights and other related products and accessories in the boating/dock industry. Its product line includes solar-related dock lights.
In April 2012, Lake Lite first began to offer a “Solar Dot” line of products. Lake Lite indicates that UFP inquired about collaborating with Lake Lite to offer the Solar Dot products to UFP’s customers and that, in November 2012, a mutual non-disclosure agreement was entered so that confidential information regarding Lake Lite’s Solar Dot products could be disclosed and the potential collaboration evaluated. The disclosed information included Lake Lite’s copyright applications to now-copyrighted materials, registered as U.S. Copyright Nos. VAu001118627 and VAu001156962.
Lake Lite asserts that, during these negotiations, it made numerous modifications requested by UFP for which it was not compensated. Lake Lite and UFP failed to reach an agreement about licensing terms and discontinued negotiations. Instead, Lake Lite asserts, UFP has now wrongfully begun offering its own “Solar Deck and Dock Lights.”
In this Indiana copyright and patent litigation, Plaintiff Lake Lite’s specific complaints include that Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their manufacture, importing, marketing and sale of their solar deck and dock light products. Lake Lite contends that Defendants’ acts include infringement of Lake Lite’s copyrights and patents, unauthorized use and misappropriation of Lake Lite’s confidential information and trade secrets and violation of the mutual non-disclosure agreement between Lake Lite and UCP.
The complaint, filed by a copyright and patent lawyer for Lake Lite, alleges the following:
• Count One – Copyright Infringement
• Count Two – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D697,246
• Count Three – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,845,126
• Count Four – Breach of Contract
• Count Five – Breach of Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
• Count Six – Violation of Indiana Uniform Trade Secret Act
• Count Seven – Unjust Enrichment
Lake Lite asks for a judgment of infringement of its copyrights-in-suit, of infringement of its patents-in-suit, that the non-disclosure agreement was violated by Defendants, that Defendants violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in their dealings with Lake Lite regarding the Solar Dot products, that Defendants have misappropriated Lake Lite’s trade secrets and that Defendants have been unjustly enriched.
Lake Lite seeks injunctive relief; damages, including punitive damages; costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees.
Indiana Code Section 24-2-3-2 defines a trade secret as:
The four general characteristics of a trade secret are:
1. it is information;
Posted in: Breach of Contract, Conversion, Copyright Infringement, Counterfeit, Indiana State Law, License, New Litigation, Patent Infringement and Trade Secrets
Updated: March 14, 2018 9:01 am
Indiana Trademark Law: Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting Defendants Held Liable for Both Damages and Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fees
South Bend, Indiana – Chief Judge Philip P. Simon of the Northern District of Indiana ordered Defendants The Treasure Box, Inc. and Heather Hiatt, both of Elkhart, Indiana to pay statutory damages, attorney’s fees and costs to Coach, Inc. of New York, New York and Coach Services, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida for trademark infringement and counterfeiting.
By way of summary judgment, the court had earlier determined in this Indiana trademark and counterfeit litigation that Defendants The Treasure Box and Hiatt were liable for the trademark infringement and trademark counterfeiting of Plaintiff Coach’s trademarks. The court’s summary judgment determinations also included a finding that “The Treasure Box and Heather Hiatt acted with knowledge and intent” that was sufficient to support enhanced statutory damages. In this opinion and order, the court fixed the amount due to Coach from Defendants.
Instead of requesting actual damages resulting from Defendants’ trademark infringement and counterfeiting within Indiana, Coach opted for statutory damages under §1117(c). It asked the court for damages of $100,000 for each of the 15 infringing marks, for a total of $1,500,000. The Treasure Box and Hiatt, unrepresented by counsel at the time, filed no response or opposition to Coach’s damages request.
The court first addressed the proper measure of damages. Statutory damages for trademark infringement and trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. §1114 are limited to:
(1) not less than $1,000 or more than $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods…, as the court considers just; or
(2) if the court finds that the use of the counterfeit mark was willful, not more than $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of good…, as the court considers just.
Because the statute provides little guidance regarding what constitutes a “just” award, the court referred to the relevant factors under the analogous statutory damages provision in the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §504(c). These considerations include: the profits reaped by the infringer; the revenues lost by the plaintiff; the value of the trademarks; whether the infringing conduct was willful; the duration of the infringement; and the potential deterrent effect on the defendant and others.
The court considered each factor in turn. It found that, because The Treasure Box’s operations were both brief and “even trivial” in scale, neither Defendants’ profits nor Coach’s lost revenue supported a large statutory damages award. Instead, the court cited Nimmer on Copyright for the proposition that statutory damages “should be woven out of the same bolt of cloth as actual damages.” “Statutory damages,” said the court, “should represent some approximation of actual damages and are not to represent a windfall to a prevailing plaintiff.”
In contrast, the factors of “value of the trademarks” and “willful conduct” weighed against Defendants. The court acknowledged that the Coach trademarks were valuable and noted that, in determining statutory damages, other courts had valued the trademarks at between $2,000 per mark and $30,000 per mark, for an average of approximately $14,000 per mark. Moreover, it characterized Hiatt’s infringement as having been pursued with “bold willfulness” with regard to her efforts to sell what she knew was knock-off Coach merchandise.
The last two considerations – duration of infringement and potential deterrent effect on Defendant and others – weighed against a large award of damages. The Treasure Box had operated for only three months, closing in late 2011. Such a brief term of infringement, as well as the court’s conclusion that Hiatt and the defunct The Treasure Box were now apparently beyond deterrence, militated in favor of lower damages. Regarding deterrence for others, the court stated, “Mom & Pop operators such as the Hiatts could doubtless be deterred from similar conduct by much less frightful sums than the $1.5 million Coach requests.”
The court concluded that an award of $3,000 per trademark for each of the 15 counterfeited trademarks at issue, for a statutory damages award of $45,000, was appropriate.
The court was also asked to award to Coach attorney’s fees of $14,780 pursuant to §1117(a)(3). This section permits a court “in exceptional cases” to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. The court first noted the ambiguity inherent in the placement of §1117(a)(3) within the statute. Specifically, subsection (a) addresses recovery for actual damages, while subsection (c) allows a plaintiff to opt for statutory damages. Here, Coach chose an award of statutory damages under subsection (c), which raised the question of whether the provision for attorney’s fees under §1117(a)(3) could be applied.
The only Court of Appeals to have addressed the question was the Second Circuit. That court concluded that subsection (c) offers an election as to the basis for damages, but not an election regarding remedies, including attorney’s fees. Thus, it concluded, a court could award attorney’s fees in conjunction with an award for either actual or statutory damages. Chief Judge Simon adopted the Second Circuit’s reasoning. He also determined that the definition of an “exceptional” case – for example, one in which “the losing party was the defendant and had no defense yet persisted in trademark infringement” – was also met, given the willfulness of Defendants’ knowing sale of counterfeit Coach goods and that Defendants had no viable defense.
In addition to the statutory damages award of $45,000, the court awarded attorney’s fees of $14,780 as well as expenses and costs of $1,076.16 to Coach. The judgments were entered against Treasure Box, Inc. and Heather Hiatt jointly and severally.
Practice Tip: Chief Judge Simon noted that Coach had a history of requesting statutory damages that were considerably in excess of what was eventually awarded by the courts in other cases. In Coach, Inc. v. Paula’s Store Sportwear LLC, 2014 WL 347893 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2014), Coach requested $800,000 in statutory damages – $100,000 for each of eight counterfeited marks – at a shop from which four counterfeit Coach wallets and two counterfeit Coach handbags had been seized. In that litigation for counterfeiting, the court noted that the retail value of the six counterfeit items was less than $1500 and awarded $5000 for each of the eight marks that had been counterfeited, multiplied by the two types of goods, for a total statutory damages award of $80,000.
Posted in: Attorney's Fees, Counterfeit, Damages and New Decisions
Updated: July 23, 2014 3:10 pm