ILNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT