Irked judge in tanning trademark dispute: ‘This is a busy Court’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge warned a tanning product maker and lawyers defending it from a trademark infringement claim that they were dangerously close to getting burned.

Indianapolis-based Australian Gold uses the trademark “Live Laugh Tan” in marketing its line of indoor tanning preparations. The company sued Florida-based Devoted Creations after it began selling products using the mark, “Live Love Tan.” Australian Gold claims trademark infringement and unjust enrichment.

Devoted Creations petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to dismiss the complaint, Australian Gold, LLC v. Devoted Creations, LLC, 1:13-cv-00971-JMS-DML, but Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson issued an order tersely denying the motion. Devoted Creations argued that its use of the mark on tanning products could not infringe on Australian Gold’s use of its trademark on tote bags.

“In light of this allegation, Devoted Creations’ argument must be premised on one of two things: either that the Court will not read the Complaint (which alleges facts contrary to Devoted Creations’ position) or will not apply the correct standard of review,” Magnus-Stinson wrote in an order signed Wednesday. “It goes without saying that neither of these premises is true.

“Devoted Creations’ sole argument is a nonstarter on both the facts and the law, particularly on a motion to dismiss,” she wrote. “This is a busy Court that, of course, prefers to focus its efforts on motions that at least arguably have merit. The Court therefore reminds Devoted Creations and its counsel that it must be cognizant of the ethical duties under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) (stating that a motion presented to the Court functions as a certification by the presenting attorney that ‘the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law’) and 28 U.S.C § 1927 (providing for sanctions for unreasonably protracting litigation)
when filing a motion with the Court.”

Australian Gold’s complaint  seeks maximum damages allowed under 15 USC § 1117 for wrongful profits due to trademark infringement, plus attorneys fees and costs. It also seeks to bar Devoted Creations “from advertising and offering for sale or selling any products which have caused actual confusion or are likely to cause confusion” with Australian Gold’s trademark.

A jury trial is scheduled for Jan. 26, 2015.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?