Dwyer Instruments, Inc. v. Sensocon, Inc.
873 F. Supp. 2d 1015
N.D. Ind.2012Background
- Dwyer sues Sensocon and Kohl for trademark, trade dress, counterfeiting, unfair competition, false designation, and copyright infringement tied to differential pressure gauges.
- Kohl founded Sensocon after leaving Dwyer; Sensocon marketed S2000 gauges with lens design similar to Dwyer’s.
- Dwyer registered Lens Mark (USPTO Reg. No. 3,397,050) in 2008 for the lens design; Dwyer used Magnehelic® and Dwyer® marks.
- Plaintiff sent a 2007 cease-and-desist noting trade dress and trademark rights; Sensocon continued marketing into 2009.
- Sensocon began selling Third Generation Lens gauges after 2009, which lack the original lens features; TEK Instrument markets Sensocon gauges.
- The court denied partial summary judgment on most counts, but granted judgment on Count III (Dwyer® mark) per later pleading update.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal liability of Kohl for infringement | Kohl participated directly in infringing acts. | Kohl not alter ego; liability limited to Sensocon. | Kohl may be personally liable under direct infringement theory. |
| Common law trademark infringement/unfair competition by Kohl | Kohl participated or directed tortious acts. | Indiana does not impose personal liability on officers. | Citizen liability possible; not entitled to summary judgment. |
| Damages for Lens Mark pre-registration | damages for pre-registration infringement under §1125(a). | Notice requirements limit damages for post-registration infringements. | Damages available for pre-registration infringements; post-registration damages limited by notice. |
| Liability for copyright infringement (Bulletin 103) | Kohl’s involvement in drafting/edits suffices for liability. | Third party authored manual; no direct participation by Kohl. | Genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment denied. |
| Third Generation Lens as infringing design | Third Generation Lens infringes Lens Mark via continuation of infringement. | Not pleaded; Rule 15(b)(2) not satisfied; dismissal appropriate. | Issue not properly raised; damages/claims remain unresolved; further proceedings needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’r, Inc., 267 F.3d 660 (7th Cir.2001) (likelihood of confusion and protectable marks guidance)
- Promatek Indus., Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir.2002) (nominative fair use factors in comparative advertising)
- Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir.2012) (nominative fair use context; refers to referential use to identify plaintiff’s goods)
- August Storck K.G. v. Nabisco, Inc., 59 F.3d 616 (7th Cir.1995) (comparative advertising; permissible use when no sponsorship implied)
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (U.S.1982) (contributory infringement theory for injurious distribution chain liability)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 764 (U.S.1992) (descriptive vs. inherently distinct marks; secondary meaning framework)
- New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ’g, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (3d Cir.1992) (multifactor likelihood of confusion analysis templates)
- Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Lendingtree, Inc., 425 F.3d 211 (3d Cir.2005) (multi-factor likelihood of confusion framework; fair use context)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (U.S.2000) (concept of product trade dress distinctiveness and secondary meaning)