Overhauser Law Offices Blog
280 FOLLOWERS
Articles on topics like Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Trademarks Issued, Intellectual Property Law, and more. Overhauser Law Offices is an intellectual property law firm providing patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and related infringement litigation services.
Overhauser Law Offices Blog
3w ago
Lafayette, Indiana – Plaintiff Aaron Rigsby, a professional videographer, has brought suit against Defendant John W. Darnell, Inc. d/b/a All Seasons Roofing for alleged copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C §101 et seq.
According to the complaint, Aaron Rigsby recorded and produced a video capturing the aftermath of a tornado in Sullivan, Indiana. Rigsby then secured copyright registrations for his work, establishing his exclusive rights to its use and distribution.
Rigsby now alleges that All Seasons Roofing, operating under the account “@All Seasons Roofing and Restoration ..read more
Overhauser Law Offices Blog
1M ago
In Cyprus, Texas, Valcrum, LLC (“Valcrum”), a company specializing in trailer and axle market products, is engaged in a legal dispute with Dexter Axle Company, LLC (“Dexter”) from Indiana over trademark and trade dress infringement regarding a hubcap design.
According to court documents, Valcrum has developed a reputation for innovative hubcaps designed for 8,000-16,000-pound trailer axles. These hubcaps are identified by their distinct features, including a “signature red hex bezel with a hexagonal outer perimeter and an inner diameter.” Valcrum claims to have begun establishing trademark and ..read more
Overhauser Law Offices Blog
1M ago
Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. (“Nutramax”) have recently begun legal proceedings against CNB Retailers, LLC, Brett Hart, and Christina Miller (“Defendants”) alleging unauthorized resale of Nutramax products. The suit involves allegations concerning trademark infringement, unfair competition, and interference with contractual agreements.
Nutramax Labs and Nutramax Vet, entities headquartered in South Carolina, are known for their development and distribution of health supplements tailored for companion animals. Court documents state that the tra ..read more
Overhauser Law Offices Blog
1M ago
The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 312 patents to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2024:
Patent Number
Patent Title
US 11886208 B2
Electronic user interface for electronic mixing of water for residential faucets
US 11884752 B2
Inhibited non-pregelatinized granular starches
US 11883335 B2
Medical products storage device including access control
US 11884467 B2
Degradable materials and packaging made from same ..read more
Overhauser Law Offices Blog
1M ago
The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 204 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2024 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
Registration Number
Wordmark
7309930
AIRFEET
7298640
PERQ CONVERT
7317144
ENVIRON
7302107
PAINT & DECORATING RETAILER
7308828
7312041
KIRKWOOD CANDLE BAR
7296488
PET FRIENDLY SERVICES OF INDIANA
7305310
INCREMENTAL INCAPACITATION
7308372
OFFICER HARPER
7310598
CVC
7300656
FLEXSTYLE
7301202
RIFFEL
7304913
MYSCAPE
7303505
SWING-FIX
7304654
INVES ..read more
Overhauser Law Offices Blog
1M ago
Indianapolis, Indiana – Defendant Circle City Broadcasting, LLC d/b/a WISH-TV, is being sued by Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski over alleged copyright infringement. Sadowski is a photojournalist from New Jersey, who has been published in numerous popular newspapers and magazines. While he holds the licenses to his photographs, court documents explain that Sadowski allows entities to purchase a one-time-use license for themselves.
According to the complaint, in 2019, Sadowski created and copyrighted a photograph titled “062219garbagetruck4CS,” depicting the bustling streets of New York Cit ..read more
Overhauser Law Offices Blog
1M ago
In a recent CAFC ruling on U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658, owned by Mantissa Corporation, the court addressed the issue of claim definiteness in the context of an infringement dispute with First Financial Corporation and First Financial Bank, N.A. The case focused on interpreting terms like “transaction partner” and “OFF” within the patent claims. The district court, relying on expert testimony, found “transaction partner” indefinite, a decision challenged by Mantissa. However, the CAFC majority emphasized intrinsic evidence from the patent itself, highlighting the term’s absence in the original sp ..read more
Overhauser Law Offices Blog
1M ago
Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC (“Baskin-Robbins”) v. Blue Moo Ice Cream Inc. (“Blue Moo”) is a breach of contract and trademark infringement suit involving Plaintiff Baskin-Robbins/BR IP Holder, a well-known franchisor in the ice cream industry, and Defendants Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc., and Robert Holocher.
According to the complaint, Baskin-Robbins entered into franchise agreements with Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. for the operation of Baskin-Robbins franchises in the greater Indianapolis area. However, Baskin-Robbins claims the termination of the agreements ensued due to Blu Moo’s repeated failure to ..read more
Overhauser Law Offices Blog
1M ago
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently provided crucial clarification on the patentability of inventions facilitated by artificial intelligence (AI). The announcement, made on February 12th, has significant implications for intellectual property (IP) law and innovation in the rapidly evolving realm of AI technology.
The USPTO’s guidance delineates the conditions under which patents will be granted for AI-assisted inventions, emphasizing the indispensable role of human ingenuity in the innovation process. According to the new directive, patents can encompass AI-assisted invention ..read more
Overhauser Law Offices Blog
2M ago
Plaintiff Excelencia Importing Pty Ltd. d/b/a Kennels & Kats (“K&K”) brought forth a complaint against Defendant Jinping Leng d/b/a Delomo (“Defendant”). The core allegation was that the Defendant, through inequitable conduct, obtained U.S. Patent No. D827,946 for a “Pet Grooming Glove,” a design that was allegedly already in circulation in the United States before the patent application. The complaint contended that the Defendant deliberately failed to disclose this information to the USPTO during the patent’s prosecution.
The legal action claimed that the Defendant’s failure to discl ..read more