IBJNews

Cummins sues T-shirt sellers for logo infringement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Cummins Inc., the Indiana-based maker of truck engines, has sued three named and 10 unnamed defendants for trademark infringement.

The company claims the defendants are making and selling T-shirts bearing its trademarks without permission.

Ready-made shirts are sold in kiosks in Indiana-area shopping malls, and they are also printed on demand through the use of iron-on transfers.

Defendents named in the suit are T’Shirt Factory, Shamir Harutyunyan and Freedom Custom Z.

T'Shirt Factory sells merchandise at various retail outlets around Indianapolis, including Greenwood Park Mall and Castleton Square Mall, the suit says. Harutyunyan is identified as an owner, agent, and/or officer of T’Shirt Factory who lives in Florida.

Freedom Custom Z operates a kiosk that sells shirts at College Mall in Bloomington.

Cummins owns trademark registrations for its logo for purposes including use with clothing, the company said in its Dec. 13 complaint.

The defendants are deliberately infringing the trademarks, according to Columbus-based Cummins. The company said it’s being harmed and customers are being misled.

Cummins asked the court for an order for the seizure and destruction of all offending merchandise, including promotional material and the iron-on transfers. The company also requested a court order barring further infringement, and awards of money damages, attorney fees and litigation costs.

The company requested that the damages by tripled to punish the defendants’ for their actions, and also seeks to be awarded all the profits derived from the alleged infringement.

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT