On September 26, 2014, Dean McConnell, an Indianapolis trademark attorney, filed a Complaint with the U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana Indianapolis Division on behalf of KM Innovations LLC of New Castle, Indiana (“KM”) for trademark infringement and false designation of origin/ unfair competition under the Trademark Act of 1946. The Complaint alleged that LTD Commodities LLC of Bannockburn, Illinois (“LTD”) infringed KM’s trademarked “INDOOR SNOWBALL FIGHT” mark, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,425,111.
In this trademark infringement complaint, KM asserted that a product called “Indoor Snowball Fight” offered and sold by LTD on the LTD’s website infringed KM’s trademark rights and was unfair competition. KM asserted that it uses two distinct trademarks to market and sell these synthetic snowballs: “SNOWTIME anytime!” and “INDOOR SNOWBALL FIGHT,” with the latter being a registered trademark of KM. KM has also sought patent protection for its indoor snowballs.
KM contended that, by using the name “Indoor Snowball Fight,” LTD had deliberately misappropriated KM’s trademark rights. It claimed that the use by LTD of this name demonstrates a wrongful attempt by LTD to trade upon the goodwill associated with the KM synthetic-snowball product. KM also claimed that LTD’s product was inferior and that, as a result, KM’s reputation would be damaged when consumers became confused into believing that KM is associated with LTD’s “Indoor Snowball Fight” product.
In its trademark infringement complaint, filed by Dean McConnell, an Indianapolis trademark lawyer, KM asserted the following causes of action against LTD:
• Count I: Infringement of Federal Trademark Registration No. 4,425,111
• Count II: False Designation of Origin/Unfair Competition – 35 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
KM requested the court for a judgment of trademark infringement and unfair competition. It requested that the court award damages, including treble damages; order the surrender of any infringing materials; prohibit the use of “Indoor Snowball Fight” by LTD and its agents; and award to KM its costs and attorneys’ fees. KM and LTD promptly resolved the lawsuit and settled the case pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement between the parties.