Case 1:21-cv-02760-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC., )
`and METHODIST HEALTH GROUP, INC. )
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-2760
`
`THOMAS A. BRADY SPORTS
`MEDICINE CENTER, P.C.
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`For their Complaint against Defendant Thomas A. Brady Sports Medicine Center, P.C.
`
`(“TABSMC”), Plaintiffs Methodist Health Group, Inc. (“MHG”), and Indiana University Health,
`
`Inc. d/b/a IU Health Methodist Hospital (“IU Health”, and together with MHG, “Plaintiffs”),
`
`through the undersigned, state and allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for direct trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and
`
`unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., and the statutes and
`
`common law of the State of Indiana.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff IU Health is an Indiana nonprofit corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Indianapolis, Indiana.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff MHG is an Indiana nonprofit corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Indianapolis, Indiana.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant TABSMC is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business
`
`in Indianapolis, Indiana.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC., )
`and METHODIST HEALTH GROUP, INC. )
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-2760
`
`THOMAS A. BRADY SPORTS
`MEDICINE CENTER, P.C.
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`For their Complaint against Defendant Thomas A. Brady Sports Medicine Center, P.C.
`
`(“TABSMC”), Plaintiffs Methodist Health Group, Inc. (“MHG”), and Indiana University Health,
`
`Inc. d/b/a IU Health Methodist Hospital (“IU Health”, and together with MHG, “Plaintiffs”),
`
`through the undersigned, state and allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for direct trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and
`
`unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., and the statutes and
`
`common law of the State of Indiana.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff IU Health is an Indiana nonprofit corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Indianapolis, Indiana.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff MHG is an Indiana nonprofit corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Indianapolis, Indiana.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant TABSMC is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business
`
`in Indianapolis, Indiana.
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02760-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) because Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the Lanham Act.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Indiana state law and
`
`common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(b) and 1367(a) because those claims are joined
`
`with substantial and related claims under the Lanham Act, and are so related to the claims under
`
`the Lanham Act that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United
`
`States Constitution.
`
`7.
`
`The exercise of in personam jurisdiction over TABSMC comports with the laws of
`
`the State of Indiana and the constitutional requirements of due process because TABSMC is
`
`located in Indiana, TABSMC and/or its agents transact business, and/or offer to transact business,
`
`within Indiana.
`
`8.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over TABSMC because TABSMC has
`
`committed tortious acts in Indiana causing injury to Plaintiffs in Indiana. For example, as alleged
`
`below, TABSMC has, without authorization, advertised, offered for sale, sold, and provided
`
`medical services in connection with the trademark METHODIST, which has caused injury to
`
`Plaintiffs in Indiana.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and 1391(c)(2)
`
`because TABSMC is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
`
`ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO ALL COUNTS
`
`Plaintiffs and the METHODIST Mark.
`
`A.
`
`10.
`
`For nearly 100 years, MHG (and its predecessors) operated Methodist Hospital of
`
`Indiana (“Methodist Hospital”) — an important health care institution in the State of Indiana.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02760-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 11/01/21 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
`
`11.
`
`In 1997, Methodist Hospital and other health care organizations were consolidated
`
`to create IU Health (then known as Clarian Health Partners, Inc.), and IU Health now operates
`
`Methodist Hospital. In connection with this consolidation, MHG licensed to IU Health the
`
`exclusive right to use and sublicense the METHODIST mark in connection with health care
`
`services, programs, and all related activities (the “License Agreement”).
`
`12.
`
`IU Health’s (and its predecessor’s) hard-earned reputation for providing the highest
`
`quality health care services under the METHODIST mark inures to the benefit of MHG and is
`
`reflected in the robust goodwill symbolized by the METHODIST mark, which distinguishes the
`
`associated services from those of competitors. This goodwill is the result of continuous and
`
`extensive use and promotion of the METHODIST mark, and the exercise of control over the
`
`quality of services offered thereunder. The METHODIST mark has not only amassed substantial
`
`and valuable goodwill — it also has amassed substantial consumer recognition as consumers have
`
`come to closely associate the distinctive and valuable METHODIST mark with Plaintiffs and the
`
`associated health care services.
`
`13. MHG’s priority in the METHODIST mark dates back to at least 1899.
`
`B.
`
`TABSMC and Its Wrongful Conduct.
`
`14.
`
`In or around 1990, TABSMC with MHG’s permission and oversight, branded itself
`
`“Methodist Sports Medicine” and provided sports medicine and orthopedic services from, among
`
`other places, the Methodist Hospital campus and Methodist Medical Plaza North (an off-campus
`
`ambulatory center for Methodist Hospital). Subsequent to the execution of the License Agreement,
`
`IU Health continued to extend this permission and oversight.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiffs maintained a close clinical relationship with TABSMC and have been co-
`
`venturers with TABSMC in the development and operation of ambulatory surgery centers (the
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02760-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 11/01/21 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
`
`“ASC Joint Venture”). As a result of this close working relationship, Plaintiffs have relied on their
`
`intimate knowledge of TABSMC’s standards and procedures to ensure that the services TABSMC
`
`offered under the METHODIST mark meet Plaintiffs’ high quality standards.
`
`16.
`
`In or around 2019,, Plaintiffs learned that TABSMC intended to relocate its primary
`
`practice location from Methodist Medical Plaza North to a competing Franciscan Alliance health
`
`care campus where a new orthopedic hospital is being constructed, to withdraw from the ASC
`
`Joint Venture and to develop and operate a new ambulatory surgery center on the Franciscan
`
`Alliance’s competing health care campus that would compete with the ASC Joint Venture,
`
`effectively ending TABSMC’s close working relationship with Plaintiffs.
`
`17.
`
`On August 2, 2021, Plaintiffs sent a letter to TABSMC inquiring as to TABSMC’s
`
`rebranding strategy in light of TABSMC’s plan to end its close working relationship with Plaintiffs
`
`and its decision to affiliate itself with Franciscan Alliance by relocating its primary practice
`
`location to the Franciscan Alliance’s new competing health care campus.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`TABSMC did not respond to the August 2, 2021 letter.
`
`On October 13, 2021, Plaintiffs sent another letter to TABSMC and terminated the
`
`permission to use the METHODIST mark and demanded that TABSMC immediately cease all use
`
`of the same.
`
`20.
`
`TABSMC failed to do so, and its continued unauthorized use of the METHODIST
`
`mark in connection with health care services is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception in
`
`the market as to the source or origin of TABSMC’s services, and to falsely suggest that TABSMC
`
`and its services are sponsored by, connected to, or associated with Plaintiffs.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02760-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 11/01/21 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiffs have no control over the quality of the services TABSMC makes under
`
`the METHODIST mark. The invaluable goodwill represented in the Methodist mark is thereby
`
`wrongfully at the mercy of TABSMC.
`
`22.
`
`By using the METHODIST mark designation without authorization, TABSMC is
`
`and has been willfully and intentionally trading upon the goodwill in the Methodist mark that
`
`Plaintiffs developed at their considerable expense and effort. TABSMC thereby has caused and is
`
`causing Plaintiffs substantial and irreparable harm and injury.
`
`COUNT I
`(False Designation of Origin – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`TABSMC’s unauthorized use of the METHODIST mark or any mark confusingly
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`similar to or that in any way represents or implies that TABSMC’s services are in any way
`
`associated with Plaintiffs as alleged herein constitutes false designation of origin in violation of 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1125(a). TABSMC’s use of the METHODIST mark or any mark confusingly similar to,
`
`or that in any way represents or implies that TABSMC’s services are in any way associated with,
`
`Plaintiffs is likely to cause confusion, mistake and/or deception as to the source or origin of
`
`TABSMC’s services, and to falsely suggest that TABSMC and its services are sponsored by,
`
`connected to, or associated with Plaintiffs.
`
`25.
`
`TABSMC’s wrongful use of the Methodist mark is knowing, deliberate, and
`
`willful.
`
`26.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of TABSMC’s actions described herein, Plaintiffs
`
`have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury to their business, reputation, and
`
`goodwill, unless and until the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoins TABSMC’s actions.
`
`Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02760-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 11/01/21 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
`
`27.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of TABSMC’s actions described herein, Plaintiffs
`
`are under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 entitled to a monetary recovery in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT II
`(Common Law Unfair Competition)
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`TABSMC’s unauthorized use of the METHODIST mark or any mark confusingly
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`similar to or that in any way represents or implies that TABSMC’s services are in any way
`
`associated with Plaintiffs as alleged herein constitutes common law unfair competition.
`
`TABSMC’s use of the Methodist mark or any mark confusingly similar to or that in any way
`
`represents or implies that TABSMC’s services are in any way associated with Plaintiffs is likely
`
`to cause confusion, mistake and/or deception as to the source or origin of TABSMC’s services,
`
`and to falsely suggest that TABSMC and its services are sponsored by, connected to, or associated
`
`with Plaintiffs.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant’s wrongful use of the METHODIST mark is knowing, deliberate, and
`
`willful.
`
`31.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions described herein, Plaintiffs
`
`has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury to their business, reputation, and
`
`goodwill, unless and until the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoins Defendant’s actions.
`
`Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`32.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions described herein, Plaintiffs
`
`have suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT III
`(Deception – Indiana Code § 35-43-5-3(a)(6))
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02760-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 11/01/21 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
`
`34.
`
`By engaging in the knowing, intentional, deliberate, willful, and malicious actions
`
`described above, TABSMC has disseminated to the public information that TABSMC knows is
`
`false, misleading, or deceptive, with the intent to promote TABSMC’s business and/or commercial
`
`interests.
`
`35.
`
`TABSMC has therefore committed deception under Indiana Code Section 35-43-
`
`5-3(a)(6).
`
`36.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of TABSMC’s actions described herein, Plaintiffs
`
`have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury to their business, reputation, and
`
`goodwill, unless and until the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoins Defendant’s actions.
`
`Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`37.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of TABSMC’s actions described herein, Plaintiffs
`
`have suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT IV
`(Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act– Indiana Code § 35-24-3-1)
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Under the Indiana Crime Victims’ Act, Indiana Code Section 35-24-3-1, a person
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`that suffers pecuniary loss as a result of the violation of Indiana Code Sections 35-43 et seq., may
`
`bring a civil action against the person who caused the loss for treble damages, costs of the action,
`
`and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`40.
`
`As set forth herein, TABSMC has violated Indiana Code Section 35-43-5-3 through
`
`TABSMC’s knowing, intentional, deliberate, willful, and malicious commission of deception.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiffs are the victim of TABSMC’s deception and other knowing, intentional,
`
`deliberate, willful, and malicious actions set forth herein, and, as a result, have suffered, and will
`
`continue to suffer, monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02760-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 11/01/21 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to an award of those actual damages as well as
`
`statutory treble damages, corrective advertising damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and
`
`pray:
`
`A.
`
`That this Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin TABSMC and each of its
`
`partners, affiliates, associates, agents, servants and employees, and all others acting in concert with
`
`TABSMC from directly, indirectly, contributorily, or vicariously infringing the METHODIST
`
`mark, from any and all use of the METHODIST mark, or any mark confusingly similar to the
`
`METHODIST mark or that in any way represents or implies that TABSMC’s goods are in any
`
`way associated with Plaintiffs, and from otherwise engaging in unfair competition or deception;
`
`B.
`
`That this Court order TABSMC to pay to Plaintiffs such damages as Plaintiffs have
`
`sustained by reason of TABSMC’s false designation of origin, unfair competition, deception, and
`
`other wrongful conduct;
`
`C.
`
`That this Court order TABSMC to account for and to pay Plaintiffs all profits
`
`derived by TABSMC by reason of the acts complained of herein;
`
`D.
`
`That this Court treble all profits and damages owing to Plaintiffs due to
`
`(i) TABSMC’s willful trademark infringement and false designation of origin and pursuant to 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1117(a), and (ii) TABSMC’s deception pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-24-3-1;
`
`E.
`
` That this Court order TABSMC to pay Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees
`
`and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117(a) and Indiana Code § 35-24-3-1; and
`
`F.
`
`That this Court award Plaintiffs such other further relief as this Court deems just.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-02760-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 11/01/21 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully request a trial by jury on all issues raised by this Complaint.
`
`Dated: November 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Louis T. Perry
`
`Louis T. Perry (#25736-49)
`Elizabeth A. Charles (#36168-49)
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`300 North Meridian Street
`Suite 2500
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`Phone: (317) 237-0300
`Fax:
`(317) 237-1000
`Email: louis.perry@faegredrinker.com
`Email: elizabeth.charles@faegredrinker.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Indiana University Health,
`Inc. and Methodist Health Group, Inc.
`
`9
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
