, , , ,

When a Partnership Pitch Becomes a Trade Secret Lawsuit: DynamoEdge v. Andretti

Every IP lawyer has heard some version of this story from a founder: we shared our technology with a bigger, better-connected partner during “partnership talks,” the deal fell apart, and a few years later our idea showed up inside someone else’s billion-dollar company. Usually the facts are murkier than the founder’s telling. But when the allegations land in a filed complaint, with a granted patent number attached and a state economic development agency named as a defendant, the story becomes a useful case study regardless of how it ultimately resolves.

That is exactly what happened on March 5, 2026, when Barbara Bessolo, founder and CEO of the Carmel, Indiana-based startup DynamoEdge, filed suit in Marion Superior Court against Michael Andretti, Andretti Autosport Holding Company, Andretti Global, the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC), former IEDC chief innovation officer David Roberts, Indy Autonomous Challenge founder Paul Mitchell, contractor 9-12 LLC, Palantir Technologies, the Applied Research Institute/Indiana Innovation Institute, and more than a dozen additional individuals and entities.

The technology at the center of the dispute

DynamoEdge builds real-time “edge AI” for motorsports telemetry — software designed to process vehicle sensor data on the fly and predict performance outcomes and equipment failures before they happen. The complaint centers on U.S. Patent No. 12,518,219, which DynamoEdge filed for in May 2022 and which was granted in early 2026, covering real-time processing of vehicle sensor data. Bessolo also claims common-law rights in the phrase “Predicting the Unpredictable,” which she says DynamoEdge has used as a slogan since around 2021.

How the relationship allegedly unraveled

According to the complaint and subsequent reporting, the story begins in October 2020, when DynamoEdge entered partnership discussions with Andretti. Bessolo alleges Andretti agreed to rebrand the company as “AndrettiEdge” and brought her into investor meetings with AT&T. Around 2021, DynamoEdge also held a subcontract with 9-12 LLC, which was terminated that September. A May 2021 matching-grant agreement between 9-12 and DynamoEdge was reportedly canceled within weeks of being signed.

Bessolo alleges that David Roberts, in his IEDC role, undermined her relationships with prospective partners including Cisco and AT&T, at one point allegedly telling her the technology was “never going to be at IMS” — a reference to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. By 2024, Andretti had launched an AI venture reported to be valued at roughly $1 billion, which the complaint alleges incorporates DynamoEdge’s vehicle-performance-prediction technology and marketing language. The complaint also points to a 5G proof-of-concept project involving 9-12 LLC, AT&T, and Purdue University as another avenue through which DynamoEdge’s IP allegedly ended up in other hands.

The legal theories

The complaint reportedly pleads several distinct causes of action rather than a single trade secret claim, which is worth noting for anyone tracking how these disputes get pleaded in practice: misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, tortious interference, defamation, and a claim for an accounting of IEDC contracts and grants dating back to 2016. That last piece is unusual — Bessolo’s team is effectively asking the court to require a public agency to open its books, on the theory that public funds may have supported ventures built on her technology without authorization. She is seeking exemplary and punitive damages along with an injunction barring further use of the disputed IP, trademarks, and technology.

Roberts, through his attorney Paul Jefferson, has already pushed back publicly, characterizing the suit as resting on “a fundamental lack of knowledge of the facts.” None of the defendants have been found liable, and the case is still in its early stages.

Why this case is worth watching

Setting aside how the facts eventually shake out, the fact pattern touches several issues that come up constantly in technology partnership deals: what happens when a startup shares proprietary technology during unsigned “partnership” discussions with a larger, better-resourced counterparty; whether a slogan or brand phrase used consistently in commerce can support common-law trademark rights; how patent prosecution timing (a 2022 filing, a 2026 grant) interacts with allegations of use that predate issuance; and the added complexity of layering a public-private economic development relationship — with grants, subcontracts, and a state agency’s own conflict-of-interest exposure — on top of an ordinary commercial dispute.

For founders, the practical lesson is the same one IP counsel gives in every deal-stage conversation: get the NDA and any IP assignment or license terms in writing before the pitch, not after the rebrand discussion; file for patent protection early rather than relying on trade secret status alone once a technology is being shopped around to partners; and document who said what, and when, because years later those details are exactly what a complaint like this one is built on.

We’ll continue to monitor this case as it proceeds through Marion Superior Court.

 

This post summarizes publicly reported allegations from a filed civil complaint. The claims described above are allegations only and have not been proven in court.

Sources

, ,

From Cattle Brands to Trademarks: Protecting Your Brand in the Wild West of Business

Long before “brand” meant a logo, a tagline, or a feeling customers get when they see your name, it meant something you could smell burning. On the open range of the American West, a rancher’s brand — a distinctive shape burned into a calf’s hide — was the only thing standing between “that’s my cattle” and a very expensive argument. One glance at the mark told everyone on the trail exactly whose herd was whose, and rustling a branded animal was a serious offense precisely because the brand was proof of ownership.

That’s not just a colorful bit of frontier history. It’s the literal ancestor of modern trademark law.

The Original Brand Protection

When ranchers registered their brands with the local cattlemen’s association or county recorder, they were doing something strikingly similar to what a business does today when it files a trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Both acts say the same thing: this mark identifies something as mine, and I’m putting the world on notice.

The parallels go deeper than the word itself:

A registered cattle brand had to be distinctive enough that it couldn’t be mistaken for a neighbor’s — two ranchers couldn’t both claim a plain circle. Trademark law imposes the same requirement today: your mark has to be distinctive enough to actually distinguish your goods or services from everyone else’s.

A brand only meant something if you used it and defended it. A rancher who let others use his brand without objection risked losing the exclusive right to it. Trademark law works the same way — rights are built through use in commerce, and they can erode if you don’t police unauthorized use.

And just as a clever rustler might alter a brand slightly — turning a bar into a cross, adding a stroke to disguise one mark as another — trademark infringers today rely on the same trick: a name or logo close enough to cause confusion, but just different enough to claim innocence. Courts see through both.

When “Close Enough” Isn’t

This is where a lot of small and growing businesses get burned, so to speak. They assume that as long as their name or logo isn’t an exact copy, they’re safe. But trademark law — like the old brand inspectors riding the range — cares about the likelihood of confusion, not an identical replica. If a customer could reasonably mistake your mark for someone else’s, that’s a problem, whether you meant to cause confusion or not.

We see this play out constantly: a new coffee shop picks a name uncomfortably close to a regional chain’s; a startup’s logo echoes a competitor’s color palette and shape a little too closely; a product name borrows the “feel” of an established brand hoping some of that goodwill rubs off. Sometimes it’s innocent. Sometimes it isn’t. Either way, it can end in a costly dispute — or a rebrand nobody wanted to pay for.

Staking Your Claim the Right Way

The good news is that protecting your brand doesn’t require a six-shooter — just the right paperwork, done early.

Register your mark. A registered trademark is your recorded brand, on file, on notice to the world. It gives you stronger legal ground if someone else tries to ride in on your reputation.

Choose a distinctive mark from the start. The most defensible brands, like the most recognizable cattle brands, are the ones that don’t look like anyone else’s. Descriptive or generic names are harder to protect — a mark that’s inherently distinctive gives you a much stronger claim.

Use it consistently, and watch for imitators. Brands lose strength when they’re used inconsistently or left undefended. Keeping an eye on your industry — and your marketplace — for marks that ride too close to yours is part of actually owning your brand, not just registering it.

Don’t wait for a dispute to find out where you stand. By the time a conflict shows up, it’s often more expensive to fix than it would have been to prevent.

The Range Is Bigger Now, but the Principle Hasn’t Changed

Today’s marketplace is a lot more crowded than the open range ever was, and the “cattle” — your name, your logo, your reputation — moves across state lines and the internet in an instant. But the underlying idea a rancher understood in 1880 still holds: a mark is only worth something if it’s clearly yours, clearly distinctive, and clearly defended.

If you’ve built something worth putting your brand on, it’s worth protecting properly. Our team at Martin IP Law Group helps businesses register, strengthen, and defend their brands — no branding iron required. If you’re not sure whether your mark is as protected as you think it is, we’re happy to take a look.

Got a brand you’d like us to help protect? Reach out to Martin IP Law Group — we’ll help you make sure it’s yours, free and clear.

, ,

When the Little Guy Sues the Big Guy Over a Name — And Wins the Argument on Size Alone

Usually, trademark fights follow a predictable shape. The big, famous brand sues the small upstart for trading on its name. This one runs the other way. The University of Indianapolis — a private school of about 4,700 students — has sued Indiana University, a public system with more than 90,000 students across its campuses, over three letters: “IU.” And UIndy’s argument isn’t that IU is too small to be confused with. It’s that IU is too big not to be.

What Happened

On August 11, 2026, UIndy filed suit against IU in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin. The dispute traces back to July 1, 2024, when Indiana University and Purdue University dissolved their joint IUPUI campus and split it into two separate schools: IU Indianapolis and Purdue in Indianapolis. In rebranding its half of the split, IU began using “IU Indy” across its website, promotional materials, and athletic uniforms.

One problem: UIndy has owned a federal registration for “UINDY” since 2003 — more than two decades of exclusive use before IU Indy existed. IU actually filed its own trademark application for “IU Indy” in February 2024, months before the split took effect. UIndy opposed that application in 2025, and the opposition never resolved. Now it’s a lawsuit.

The two names are separated by one letter. “UIndy.” “IU Indy.” Say them out loud and the difference nearly disappears.

The Legal Theory: Reverse Confusion

Here’s where the doctrine gets interesting, and where most people’s intuition about trademark law breaks down.

The classic trademark infringement story is “forward confusion”: a small, unknown company uses a name close to a famous brand’s, and consumers assume the small company is affiliated with — or is somehow riding the coattails of — the famous one. Think of a no-name soda calling itself “Coca-Cola Classic Plus.” The little guy is trying to borrow the big guy’s reputation.

UIndy isn’t making that argument, because it can’t. UIndy is the older, smaller, less nationally known name here. So instead, UIndy is alleging “reverse confusion” — a less common but well-established theory where the roles flip. In reverse confusion, a larger, more powerful junior user (IU, in this case) adopts a mark so close to a smaller senior user’s mark that the market starts to assume the senior user — the one who had the name first — is the newcomer, copycat, or unauthorized affiliate. The senior trademark holder doesn’t need the big guy’s fame to make its case. It needs the opposite: it needs to show the big guy’s fame is drowning it out.

In other words, UIndy isn’t worried that people will think it’s associated with IU. UIndy is worried that thirty years of brand-building around “UIndy” will simply be swallowed by an institution nine times its size using a nearly identical name, until the public assumes IU Indy came first and UIndy is the one riding coattails — even though the registration timeline says the exact opposite.

Why UIndy’s Case Isn’t Just Theoretical

Trademark law doesn’t protect a name because a company likes it. It protects a name because consumer confusion causes real, measurable harm — misdirected customers, diluted goodwill, lost sales. UIndy’s complaint leans on exactly that kind of evidence, not just the abstract unfairness of a bigger school using a smaller school’s near-identical name.

UIndy President Tanuja Singh pointed to a concrete example: mistaken deliveries — including deliveries intended for prospective students — showing up at the wrong campus. “It’s not hurting just us,” Singh said. “It’s hurting them as well.” That’s a notable admission threaded into UIndy’s own argument: reverse confusion, done right, is bad for both sides, not just the smaller one. When your name and mine are one letter apart, every mixed-up FedEx package, misdirected campus tour, and confused prospective-student inquiry is evidence for a lawsuit.

UIndy is also alleging harm to merchandise sales — arguing that revenue from IU gear bearing the disputed name represents profits UIndy should be able to recover.

What UIndy Is Asking For

The relief sought tells you how seriously UIndy is treating this: a permanent injunction blocking IU’s use of the “IU Indy” marks, cancellation of IU’s pending trademark applications, disgorgement of IU’s profits tied to the disputed name, and punitive damages and attorney’s fees on top of it. That’s not a cease-and-desist letter dressed up as a lawsuit. That’s a full request to unwind IU’s rebrand.

IU, for its part, isn’t saying much. A university spokesman offered the standard line: “The university does not comment on litigation.” UIndy’s spokesman struck a more conciliatory tone, saying the school will “allow the legal process to proceed and remain hopeful that this matter can be resolved.”

The Takeaway for Business Owners

You don’t need a university’s budget to learn something from this case. Three things are worth taking away, regardless of what industry you’re in.

First, registering your name early matters — and it matters for longer than you’d think. UIndy’s registration dates to 2003. Twenty-plus years later, that registration is the entire foundation of its case against an institution roughly twenty times its size by enrollment. If you’re pitching it, you should be protecting it, and the earlier you file, the stronger the ground you’re standing on when a much bigger competitor eventually shows up next door.

Second, size cuts both ways in a trademark dispute. Most founders assume the danger is a small company copying a big one’s name. Reverse confusion is the reminder that the danger also runs the other direction: a much larger competitor adopting something close to your name can erase your market identity even without any intent to trade on your goodwill. If a bigger player enters your space with a name that echoes yours, that’s not a coincidence to shrug off — it’s a trademark problem to evaluate immediately.

Third, oppositions don’t resolve themselves. UIndy opposed IU’s trademark application back in 2025. That opposition sat unresolved until UIndy escalated to federal court. If you’ve filed an opposition and it’s stalled, stalling isn’t neutral — it’s time your competitor gets to keep building brand recognition around the name you’re disputing.

How Martin IP Law Group Can Help

Watching for confusingly similar marks — before they cost you customers, merchandise revenue, or years of brand equity — is exactly what proactive trademark counsel is for. Whether you’re the university that’s been using a name since 2003 or the growing company that just noticed a much bigger competitor edging into your name space, the time to act is before the misdirected deliveries start piling up, not after.

If you’re concerned about a name that’s a little too close to yours — in either direction — we’d welcome the conversation.

, ,

When Brand Protection Becomes a Branding Problem: What Buc-ee’s Beaver-vs-Mickey’s Moose Fight Teaches Business Owners About Trademark Enforcement

If you have driven through Texas in the last decade, you already know the beaver. Buc-ee’s has turned a grinning, buck-toothed cartoon rodent into one of the most recognized retail brands in the country, and the company guards that mark aggressively. Recently, that enforcement strategy has become the story itself. Buc-ee’s is currently in federal court against Coles IP Holdings, the operator of Ohio’s Mickey’s convenience store chain, arguing that Mickey’s cartoon moose — a mascot that has coexisted with the beaver for roughly 35 years — infringes its trademark rights.

The Mickey’s suit is not an isolated dispute. Court filings show Buc-ee’s has brought more than a dozen federal trademark actions in the past two years against businesses using cartoon animal logos, from an apparel seller’s patriotic beaver patches to a Georgia koala and a Missouri duck. As a patent and trademark attorney who has spent over 30 years building and defending IP portfolios for manufacturers and growing brands, I think this case is worth unpacking — not for the gossip value, but because it illustrates a tension every client with a valuable mark eventually faces: how aggressively should you enforce your trademark rights?

The Legal Theory Is Straightforward

Trademark infringement turns on “likelihood of confusion,” not on whether two logos depict the same species. Buc-ee’s complaint points to shared visual elements — a cartoon animal facing right, wide eyes, a smile, a round badge-style frame — and argues those similarities, combined with Mickey’s increased use of red branding, could confuse convenience-store shoppers about the source of goods. That is a legitimate legal theory, and Buc-ee’s has won this kind of fight before: it prevailed in a 2018 jury trial against Choke Canyon’s alligator mascot on similar grounds.

But legal defensibility and business wisdom are not the same question. Outside trademark counsel quoted in press coverage of the Mickey’s case have called the theory a stretch, given the decades of peaceful coexistence between the two marks and the fact that a moose and a beaver are, as Mickey’s lawyers put it, simply not the same animal.

Enforcement as an Expansion Strategy

What makes this pattern especially instructive for our clients is the apparent correlation between Buc-ee’s litigation targets and its store-opening map. The Ohio suit against Mickey’s coincided with Buc-ee’s first Ohio location; the Georgia koala suit came as Buc-ee’s was already operating in that state. With per-store construction costs running into the tens of millions of dollars, protecting the singularity of the beaver in a shopper’s mind before entering a new market is, from a pure brand-value standpoint, a rational calculation.

This is a legitimate use of trademark enforcement: clearing likely sources of confusion ahead of a market entry is exactly what the law is designed to allow. Where it gets risky is in the court of public opinion, which brings us to the second lesson.

Reputational Risk Is a Real Cost of Enforcement

Mickey’s is a 42-store chain with a mascot literally sketched by a child, operating in the region for more than 40 years. Suing that kind of local, beloved brand — and demanding it “deliver up and destroy” its merchandise — has generated exactly the backlash you would expect. News coverage describes Ohio consumers calling the suit “petty,” and commentators have pointed to well-documented psychological effects: people instinctively root for the smaller party in a mismatched fight, and heavy-handed demands can trigger reactance, making the public want to defend the very thing a company is trying to suppress.

For a consumer-facing brand, goodwill is itself an asset built over years and spent in days. Any enforcement strategy that ignores that fact is incomplete, no matter how sound the underlying legal theory is.

Practical Takeaways for Business Owners

  • Enforce deliberately, not reflexively. A mark is worth defending, but every cease-and-desist letter and lawsuit should be weighed against the reputational cost of the specific target, not just the legal merits.
  • Document your rationale. If enforcement is tied to a market-entry strategy, memorialize that business justification. It supports your legal position and helps you explain the decision if it draws public attention.
  • Consider tiered responses. A quiet cease-and-desist letter, a coexistence agreement, or a licensing conversation can often resolve a conflict without the public relations exposure of a federal lawsuit — particularly against smaller or long-coexisting users.
  • Know your actual exposure. “Likelihood of confusion” depends on the totality of the marks, the goods, the channels of trade, and the strength of your mark — not merely surface-level similarities like a smiling animal facing the same direction.
  • Protect the mark before you need to litigate it. Regular trademark audits, consistent use, and prompt registration in new markets reduce the number of hard enforcement calls you will ever have to make.

The Bottom Line

A trademark is one of the most valuable assets a growing business owns, and the law gives you real tools to protect it. But those tools should be used with judgment. The Buc-ee’s and Mickey’s dispute is a live demonstration that a legally colorable claim can still be a strategic misstep if it is not weighed against brand goodwill, market perception, and the practical realities of who you are suing and why.

At Martin IP Law Group, we help manufacturing, retail, and consumer brand clients build enforcement strategies that protect the mark without sacrificing the reputation the mark represents. If you are considering a trademark dispute — on either side of it — we would welcome the conversation.

, , ,

Offside on Purpose: What the 2026 World Cup Teaches Businesses About Trademark Risk

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is underway across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and it is impossible to miss: bars are advertising watch parties, retailers are stocking jerseys, and every brand with a marketing budget wants a piece of the moment. That enthusiasm is exactly why this tournament has become one of the richest case studies in trademark and brand-protection law that our clients will see this year. FIFA does not just police what happens on the pitch. It runs one of the most aggressive intellectual property enforcement operations of any global sporting event, and businesses that misjudge the line between “celebrating the World Cup” and “infringing FIFA’s marks” can find themselves fielding a cease-and-desist letter instead of a wave of new customers.

FIFA Owns More Than You Think

Many businesses assume that a phrase as generic-sounding as “World Cup” can’t really belong to anyone. They are wrong. FIFA holds a live U.S. federal trademark registration for the standalone words “WORLD CUP,” covering everything from apparel and sports balls to beverages and broadcasting services, and it has separately registered “FIFA WORLD CUP,” the 2026 tournament slogan “We Are 26,” the trophy silhouette, the official emblem, and host-city branding. Put simply: the phrase itself, not just the logo, is protected property in the eyes of the USPTO.

That matters because FIFA’s commercial model depends on exclusivity. Official sponsors pay enormous sums specifically for the right to associate their brand with the tournament. If any business could invoke the World Cup for free, that exclusivity — and the sponsorship revenue built on it — would evaporate. So FIFA protects it aggressively, through both formal litigation and rapid-response takedown and cease-and-desist campaigns during the tournament window.

No Special “World Cup Law” This Time — But the Lanham Act Still Bites

Some past host countries passed standalone statutes specifically to shield FIFA’s marks. The 2026 host nations have largely not done that. Instead, FIFA is relying on the existing toolkit: the Lanham Act in the United States, comparable trademark statutes in Canada and Mexico, plus contractual control over stadium and venue advertising and cooperation from municipal authorities in host cities. Venue rules can bar visible non-sponsor branding inside and immediately around stadiums entirely, regardless of whether a court would ultimately find infringement — control of the physical space does a lot of the enforcement work before a lawsuit is ever needed.

Ambush Marketing: Where Businesses Get Tripped Up

“Ambush marketing” is the industry term for a non-sponsor creating the impression of an official relationship with the tournament without paying for the association. It does not require using FIFA’s logo. Legal exposure can arise from:

Using “World Cup” or “FIFA World Cup” in advertising, signage, or promotions without a license, even in phrases like “World Cup Special” or “World Cup Watch Party.”

Reproducing the trophy, mascot, official emblem, or 2026-specific color and design elements.

Marketing campaigns, contests, or social posts that imply sponsorship, endorsement, or an official partnership FIFA never granted.

For most local businesses, the safer path is straightforward: talk about “soccer,” “the tournament,” “the big match,” or “international soccer this summer” rather than FIFA’s registered phrases, and skip official logos, the trophy, and mascot imagery entirely. Showing the games on TV and drawing a crowd is fine — branding the event as if you are an official partner of it is where the risk lives.

Counterfeits: A Parallel Enforcement Front

Trademark enforcement isn’t limited to marketing language. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has already seized more than $6 million worth of counterfeit World Cup merchandise in a single sweep in Houston this year. Businesses that sell licensed merchandise, or that source promotional products for a World Cup-themed event, should confirm their supplier holds an actual license — CBP can and does seize goods at the border, and downstream retailers can face liability even when they didn’t manufacture the counterfeit items themselves.

Practical Takeaways

Audit your marketing copy, signage, and social posts before the next match window — avoid FIFA’s registered phrases and imagery.

If you want to reference the tournament directly, look into a licensing or sponsorship relationship rather than assuming fair use will cover you.

Vet merchandise suppliers for proper licensing before stocking World Cup-branded goods.

Keep an eye on venue-specific advertising restrictions if you operate near a host stadium or official fan zone.

 

The World Cup is a reminder that intellectual property law shows up in places far beyond patents and product names — it shapes what a neighborhood bar can put on a chalkboard sign. If your business wants to run a World Cup promotion, launch merchandise, or simply wants to know what language is safe to use, Martin IP Law Group can help you review your plans before they become a legal problem.

, , , , , ,

Sub-Two: The Intellectual Property Hiding Inside the Shoe That Cracked the Two-Hour Marathon

On Sunday, April 26, 2026, Kenya’s Sabastian Sawe did something most physiologists, coaches, and even Eliud Kipchoge had told us would take another decade. He ran 26.2 miles through the streets of London in 1 hour, 59 minutes, and 30 seconds — the first sub-two-hour marathon ever recorded under legal, record-eligible race conditions. Ethiopia’s Yomif Kejelcha crossed eleven seconds later in 1:59:41, in his marathon debut no less. Two men under two hours, on the same morning, on the same course.

It was a stunning athletic moment. It was also a stunning intellectual property moment. Both runners were wearing the same shoe: the brand-new Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3. And tucked inside that 97-gram slipper of carbon, foam, and rubber sits a small portfolio of legal rights — patents, trade dress, trademarks, and trade secrets — that helped make the impossible legal, marketable, and protectable.

As an IP lawyer who has spent years counseling product companies on how to wrap protection around physical innovations, I find moments like this irresistible. So let’s walk through what is actually being protected when a shoe like this hits the start line.

Utility Patents: The Science Underfoot

The most important IP layer in a “super shoe” is the utility patent. A utility patent protects how something works — its function — and the Pro Evo 3 is a stack of functional inventions sitting on top of each other.

Adidas has publicized three of them: a new LIGHTSTRIKE Pro Evo foam compound engineered for higher energy return per gram; a carbon-fiber-infused stiffening element seated between the foam and outsole to control flex; and a redesigned forefoot outsole geometry tuned for traction at marathon pace. Each of these is the kind of feature that, in patent terms, can support multiple independent claims. The foam is a composition-of-matter invention. The plate-and-foam architecture is a structural invention. The outsole geometry is a design-for-performance invention. Each can be claimed and prosecuted separately, and each can be licensed, enforced, or designed around independently.

This stacked-claim strategy is the same playbook Nike used a decade ago when its ZoomX foam and Vaporfly carbon plate launched the modern super-shoe era. Nike’s portfolio became so thick that competitors spent years either litigating around it or paying to play. The Pro Evo 3 represents Adidas’s answer: its own patent thicket, built from the ground up, designed to give Adidas the same defensive moat Nike enjoyed at the dawn of carbon-plated racing.

The 40-Millimeter Wall

There is a second, less obvious legal layer: the regulatory ceiling. World Athletics caps the maximum stack height of road racing shoes at 40 millimeters. The Pro Evo 3’s stack is reportedly 39 millimeters — exactly one millimeter under the limit. That is not an accident. It is engineering against a rule.

For an IP lawyer, this is fascinating because it shapes what is worth patenting in the first place. Once the maximum amount of foam is fixed by regulation, the entire arms race shifts to what kind of foam, how it is laid up, and where the carbon goes inside the legal envelope. Innovation gets pushed into chemistry, geometry, and weight reduction — exactly the areas where Adidas is now filing. A men’s size 9 of the Pro Evo 3 weighs 97 grams, roughly 30 percent lighter than its predecessor. That weight reduction, achieved without sacrificing stack height, is itself patentable subject matter.

Trade Dress and Design Patents: The Look of Going Fast

Function is only half the story. The Pro Evo 3 is also visually distinctive — the silhouette of the midsole, the sweep of the outsole lugs, the placement of the three stripes, the colorway used at London. These visual elements are the domain of design patents and trade dress.

A design patent in the United States protects the ornamental appearance of a functional article for fifteen years. Trade dress, protected under the Lanham Act, protects the overall look and feel of a product when consumers have come to associate that look with a single source. If you can glance at a shoe from across the expo hall and instantly say “that’s an Adizero,” that recognition is exactly what trade dress law exists to protect.

Expect Adidas to pursue both. Design patents lock in protection at the moment of launch, before the shoe has built consumer recognition; trade dress takes over once the look becomes famous. Together they give Adidas a way to stop knockoffs that copy the appearance of the Pro Evo 3 without copying the patented technology inside.

Trademarks: The Words That Sell the Speed

Then there are the names. ADIDAS. ADIZERO. ADIOS. LIGHTSTRIKE. PRO EVO. Each is, or can be, a registered trademark. The three-stripe mark on the side of the shoe is one of the most recognized trademarks in the world.

Trademarks do not protect technology — they protect brand. But in the running market, brand is enormously valuable. A consumer who pays $500 for the Pro Evo 3 is paying partly for the science and partly for the story. Sawe’s 1:59:30 just made that story considerably easier to tell, and considerably more expensive to imitate.

Trade Secrets and Sponsorship Rights

Two final layers deserve mention. First, trade secrets. The exact LIGHTSTRIKE Pro Evo foam formulation — the polymer blend, the gas-loading process, the cure schedule — is almost certainly held as a trade secret rather than disclosed in a patent. Patents require public disclosure in exchange for a 20-year monopoly; trade secrets last forever, but only as long as they stay secret. Most shoe companies pursue both, patenting the structural innovations and locking the chemistry behind NDAs.

Second, the athletes themselves are walking IP. Sawe’s and Kejelcha’s name, image, and likeness rights — what U.S. lawyers call rights of publicity — are being licensed to Adidas through endorsement contracts. When a photo of Sawe crossing the line in the Pro Evo 3 ends up on an Adidas billboard, a separate set of contractual and statutory rights is being exercised in addition to the IP baked into the shoe.

Why It Matters

Records like 1:59:30 are not won by shoes alone. They are won by athletes with extraordinary genetics, extraordinary training, and an extraordinary appetite for pain. But they are enabled by a quiet legal infrastructure most fans never see — the patents, designs, marks, and contracts that let a company invest tens of millions of dollars in research and feel reasonably confident it can recoup that investment.

The next time you watch a world record fall, look past the finish line clock. Somewhere in the corporate filings, there is a patent application that helped get the runner there.

 

Rick Martin is the founder of Martin IP Law Group, where he counsels clients on patent, trademark, and trade-secret strategy for technology-driven products. Nothing in this article is legal advice. If you are evaluating IP protection for an athletic-products innovation, contact the firm directly.

,

What Taylor Swift’s New Trademark Filings Mean for Anyone With a Public Identity

If your face, your voice, or your name has commercial value, the news out of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office last week should be on your radar. Taylor Swift just took a step that, until recently, almost no one was taking — and the reason she took it is the same reason you might need to.

The Headline

On Friday, Swift’s company filed three new trademark applications. Two are for short clips of her speaking voice. One is for a now-iconic stage image of her holding a pink guitar in a sequinned outfit from the Eras Tour.

In one of the audio clips, she simply says, “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift, and you can listen to my new album, ‘The Life of a Showgirl,’ on demand, on Amazon Music Unlimited.” It sounds ordinary. The legal move behind it is not.

These filings are part of a deliberate strategy to use trademark law — not just copyright — to protect a person’s identity from being copied, imitated, or recreated by artificial intelligence.

Why This Should Matter to You

Most people assume copyright handles this. It does not, at least not anymore.

Copyright protects specific works — a song you recorded, a photograph someone took of you, a video you released. It does not stop someone from generating a brand-new clip that simply sounds like you or looks like you. And that is exactly what today’s AI tools are built to do.

In the past year, AI-generated voice clones have been used to fake celebrity endorsements, push fraudulent products, and impersonate executives in scam calls. AI-generated images and videos of recognizable people — singers, athletes, business leaders, influencers — are flooding social platforms. The technology no longer needs to copy anything you own. It just needs to convincingly imitate you.

That gap is where trademark law is starting to step in. A trademark protects the things that identify you in the marketplace — your name, your logo, and increasingly, distinctive elements of your voice and image. If those elements are registered, you have a much stronger basis to demand that platforms take down impersonating content, to stop bad actors from profiting off your likeness, and to recover damages when they do.

Swift is not the first. Matthew McConaughey has filed similar applications in recent months. Expect a wave of artists, athletes, executives, and brand-driven public figures to follow. The people who file early will have the strongest position when the inevitable disputes arrive.

What “Protecting Your Identity” Actually Looks Like

You do not need to be a global pop star for this to apply. If any of the following is true, a personal-brand trademark strategy is worth a serious conversation:

You have built a public following — as a creator, performer, athlete, speaker, or executive — and your name or face drives commercial value.

You appear in your own advertising, promotional content, or product packaging in a recognizable way.

You have a signature catchphrase, a distinctive vocal style, a recurring visual look, or a sound associated with your brand.

You have already seen knock-offs, fan accounts, fake endorsements, or AI-generated content using your likeness — even if you did not act on it at the time.

The work itself is not glamorous. It is identifying which elements of your identity actually function as brand identifiers, filing the right applications in the right categories, and building a portfolio that holds up when challenged. Done well, it becomes one of the most valuable assets you own.

The Window Is Open Right Now

Two things are true at the same time. First, the law in this area is still being written — courts have not yet tested how far trademark protection of a voice or image will reach. Second, the USPTO is currently accepting these filings, and the people moving first will help shape the standards everyone else has to meet.

Waiting until an AI-generated impersonation of you goes viral is the wrong time to start. The protection has to be in place before the dispute, not after.

How We Can Help

At Martin IP Law Group, we help clients build trademark and brand-protection strategies designed for exactly this moment — where the line between a person and a brand has collapsed, and where AI has made impersonation cheap, fast, and global. Protecting ideas, inventions, and identities is what we do.

If you have a public identity you want to protect, or you have already started seeing your name, voice, or image used without your permission, we would welcome the conversation. A short consultation is usually enough to tell you whether a trademark filing strategy makes sense for your situation, what it would cover, and what it would cost.

Get in touch:

 

, ,

WTF (What The Font)?

What Every Business Owner Should Know About Fonts & Intellectual Property

If your brand lives anywhere—on packaging, screens, or a storefront—it lives through type. But fonts aren’t just aesthetic choices; they’re governed by a web of intellectual property (IP) rules that can trip up marketers, designers, and developers. Here’s a practical guide to the IP issues that come with choosing, licensing, and using fonts.

First, what is a “font” legally?

Colloquially, people use “font” and “typeface” interchangeably. Legally, there’s a distinction that matters:

  • Typeface: the design of the letterforms (how it looks).
  • Font software: the digital code and data that render those letterforms on your device (.otf, .ttf, .woff/woff2, variable fonts, etc.).

In the U.S., the design of a typeface generally isn’t protected by copyright, but the font software is. Other countries treat typeface designs differently (some protect designs under design rights). Regardless, almost all practical issues you’ll face stem from the End User License Agreement (EULA) that comes with the font software.

Copyright: where the real risk lives

Because font files are software, copying, sharing, or modifying them without permission can infringe copyright. Common pitfalls:

  • Passing files around: Giving the .otf/.ttf to your agency, printer, or a freelancer is usually not permitted unless the license explicitly allows it (often via extra “seats,” “workstations,” or a separate service/vendor license).
  • Embedding: Putting fonts inside PDFs, apps, games, eBooks, or on the web often requires specific embedding rights (e.g., “PDF/Print embedding,” “App/ePub embedding,” “Webfont self-hosting”). Some licenses allow only “subset” embedding; others forbid commercial app embedding unless you upgrade.
  • Server and SaaS use: Hosting a font on a server to dynamically generate images/PDFs or to serve CSS @font-face typically needs an explicit server or webfont license, sometimes priced by pageviews, monthly active users, or output volume.
  • Modifications: Tweaking glyphs, renaming, or building a derivative font usually requires permission. “Outlining” text to curves for a printer is typically permitted as output, but altering and redistributing the actual font files is different.

Trademarks: names and logos

  • Font names (e.g., “Gotham,” “Helvetica”) can be trademarks. You can use the font in your materials, but you generally can’t market a different font under a confusingly similar name or imply affiliation with the foundry.
  • Logos created with a font: Most EULAs allow use of the font to create a distinctive logo or wordmark; the resulting logo can be your trademark. A few licenses restrict “logo use” or charge a premium—check before you launch.

Contracts & EULAs: the real rulebook

Every foundry’s EULA is its own small universe. Expect distinct SKUs for:

  • Desktop (creating static graphics)
  • Webfont (self-hosting vs. service/hosted delivery)
  • App/eBook (embedding in binaries or ePubs)
  • Server/Automated (dynamic rendering, CI pipelines)
  • Broadcast/Film (on-screen graphics)
  • OEM/Hardware (bundling with devices)

Pay attention to metrics (seats, pageviews, MAUs, output volume), permitted recipients (agencies, printers), geography, term/renewal, and audit clauses. Keep purchase records—font audits happen.

Open-source and “free” fonts aren’t a free-for-all

“Free” might mean:

  • Open source (e.g., under OFL, Apache): often allows embedding and modification, but may require renaming derivatives, preserving notices, or keeping the same license. Great for web/app use, but read the terms.
  • Freeware: use is free, but redistribution or commercial use can be restricted.
  • Trial/demo: typically watermarked or time-limited—not for production.

Always save the exact license version you relied on; terms can change.

Webfonts & PDFs: embedding essentials

  • Web: Self-hosting typically needs a webfont license and limits like pageviews. Using a subscription/hosted service often ties rights to an active account; if it lapses, your rights to serve the font may lapse too.
  • PDFs: Many EULAs allow subset embedding so documents display correctly. Bulk PDF generation (invoices, catalogs) from a server may require a server or document generation license.
  • eBooks/apps: Treat like software embedding—assume you need a specific license.

Agencies, freelancers, and handoffs

  • If a contractor uses their own license to build assets for you, you usually have rights to the delivered output, but not to the font files. If your team needs to edit the original design later, your company will need its own license.
  • If you buy the license, confirm it allows agency use (often via named seats or a “service provider” clause).

Custom fonts and ownership

Commissioning a custom typeface? Your agreement should spell out:

  • Who owns the font software (including source files), and whether the foundry can resell variants.
  • Exclusivity (industry, geography, term).
  • Scope: desktop/web/app/server rights included? Variable font axes?
  • Maintenance: bug fixes, new scripts, kerning updates.
  • Assignment: if the brand is sold, do font rights transfer?

AI and fonts (emerging issues)

  • Training: Copying proprietary font files to train an internal tool may exceed license rights. Treat the font files as copyrighted software.
  • Generation/“cloning”: Replicating a proprietary design can raise contract and trademark risks (and in some jurisdictions, design-right issues), even if U.S. copyright in the design is limited. Don’t assume “AI made it” is a defense; check licenses and avoid confusingly similar names/branding.

Enforcement & defense

  • If your fonts are pirated: You can use DMCA takedowns for unauthorized file sharing, and pursue copyright claims for unauthorized copying/distribution of the software.
  • If you receive a demand: Audit where the font file lives (local machines, servers, repos, CDN), how it’s used (web/app/PDF), and what the license covers. Shut off infringing distribution paths quickly; negotiate coverage or removal.

Quick compliance checklist

  • Do we have the right license type for each use (desktop, web, app, server, broadcast)?
  • Are pageviews/MAUs/seats within limits? Who monitors them?
  • Are agencies, printers, or vendors covered? If not, do they need their own license?
  • Are font files stored in a controlled location (not in public repos or shared drives)?
  • Do our PDF/app pipelines comply with embedding terms?
  • Have we documented license proofs (invoices, EULA versions, scope)?
  • For logos and brand systems, did we confirm logo-use permissions (if applicable)?
  • If using open-source fonts, did we retain the license text and follow any naming/notice rules?
, ,

Understanding the Spectrum of Trademark Strength

When it comes to securing a trademark in the United States, not all marks are created equal. As an intellectual property attorney with years of experience navigating the complexities of trademark law, I’ve witnessed firsthand the critical role that the inherent strength of a trademark plays in its registrability and defense. Trademarks are generally categorized along a spectrum of strength, ranging from generic to fanciful. Each category bears its own set of challenges and advantages in the realm of trademark protection.

1. Generic Trademarks

At the lowest end of the trademark strength spectrum are generic terms. These are common words or phrases used to describe a product or service (e.g., “Bicycle” for bicycles). Generic terms are inherently incapable of functioning as trademarks because they fail to identify the source of a product or service. Simply put, you cannot monopolize common language that everyone needs to describe an offering. Thus, generic terms are not registrable as trademarks.

2. Descriptive Trademarks

Moving one step up the spectrum, we find descriptive trademarks. These directly describe a characteristic or quality of the product or service (e.g., “Cold and Creamy” for ice cream). Descriptive marks are not initially registrable unless they have acquired distinctiveness through extensive use in commerce. This acquired distinctiveness is also known as “secondary meaning.” For example, “American Airlines” has become distinctive over time through prolonged and substantial use in the market. Obtaining trademark protection for a descriptive mark can be a challenging process, requiring substantial proof of this secondary meaning.

3. Suggestive Trademarks

Suggestive trademarks hint at the nature or quality of the goods or services without directly describing them, requiring some imagination on the part of the consumer (e.g., “Netflix” for streaming services). These marks are inherently distinctive and are thus easier to register than descriptive marks. Suggestive trademarks are strong because they are memorable and still inform the consumer about the nature of the product or service in a non-direct way.

4. Arbitrary Trademarks

Arbitrary trademarks consist of words or images that are in common linguistic use but do not have any inherent connection to the product or service they mark (e.g., “Apple” for computers). Since these terms are common words that are repurposed in a way unrelated to their typical meaning, they are considered strong marks. Arbitrary marks are immediately protectable and are favored in registrations because they naturally serve to identify the unique source of products or services.

5. Fanciful Trademarks

At the pinnacle of trademark strength are fanciful marks. These are invented words that have no dictionary or conventional meaning prior to their use as trademarks (e.g., “Kodak” for cameras). Fanciful marks are the easiest to register and protect because of their inherent uniqueness and distinctiveness. Being completely made-up, they are highly effective at brand identification and are afforded the widest scope of protection under U.S. trademark law.

Conclusion

The journey to trademark registration varies significantly based on the type of mark you choose. Entrepreneurs and businesses should aim for at least suggestive trademarks, if not arbitrary or fanciful, to maximize their trademark protection opportunities. As an intellectual property attorney, I advise clients to consider the inherent strength of a potential trademark from the very beginning of the brand development process. Making the right choice early on can enhance your brand’s protection and prevent costly legal battles over trademark rights.

By understanding the different types of trademarks and their respective strengths, businesses can more effectively navigate the complexities of trademark registration and enforcement. Whether you’re just starting out or looking to expand, always consider how your trademark stacks up against the spectrum of strength.

, , , ,

The Role of IP Law in Manufacturing Innovation

If you consider yourself an innovator in the fast-moving world of manufacturing, coming up with the next big thing is just part of the battle. The other half? Making sure no one else takes credit for your hard work. That’s where intellectual property law comes in—it acts as a shield for your best ideas and inventions. When you’re busy pushing the boundaries of what’s possible, keeping an eye on the legal side of things is just as crucial as the innovations themselves.

At Martin IP Law Group, our goal is to help you protect yourself and your business and to simplify the process of securing your intellectual property. Legal terms and procedures can be overwhelming, but our expertise lies in making this knowledge accessible and manageable. We focus on securing your innovative ideas so you can concentrate on what you do best: creating and expanding your business.

Continue reading to explore the essentials of intellectual property law and to learn how a tailored strategy can protect your manufacturing innovations and reinforce your business’s market position.

The Importance of Patenting Your Innovations

Let’s start with the basics: what is a patent? A patent is a legal document granted by the government that gives the holder exclusive rights to make, use, and sell an invention for a certain period of time.

In a manufacturing business, some examples of patents include a unique manufacturing process that reduces waste, a specialized piece of equipment that automates part of an assembly line, or a new material with improved strength for industrial use.

Patents are essential for a manufacturing business for several reasons:

  • Protection of Innovations: Patents give a manufacturing business the exclusive right to use and capitalize on its inventions. This legal protection prevents competitors from making, using, selling, or importing the patented product or process without permission.
  • Competitive Edge: By securing exclusive rights to a product design or manufacturing process, a company can maintain a significant advantage over competitors who cannot legally copy the innovation.
  • Revenue Generation: Patents can be a source of revenue through licensing agreements, where other companies pay to use the patented technology. This can create a steady income stream for the patent holder.
  • Attracting Investment: Investors are more likely to fund businesses with patented technology because it indicates a higher potential for commercial success and market exclusivity.
  • Increased Market Value: Patents can increase the valuation of a business. A strong portfolio of patents can suggest a high level of expertise, innovation, and future profitability, which can be attractive during mergers or acquisitions.
  • Long-Term Business Growth: Patents can protect an innovation for up to twenty years, providing a long window for a manufacturing business to maximize the returns on its research and development investments.

To find out if your idea qualifies for a patent and to understand the steps involved in applying for one, check out our detailed guide on patents.

Trademarks: Building a Brand in a Competitive Market

Trademarks are essential for any business, including those in the manufacturing industry. They are the identity of your products, helping customers recognize and stay loyal to your brand, which in turn strengthens your position in the market.

A few examples of trademarks include the distinctive logo of Caterpillar Inc. on construction equipment, the unique shape and design of the Coca-Cola bottle, and the slogan “Nothing runs like a Deere” for John Deere.

Strategies for Effective Trademark Protection

  1. Select a unique and distinctive mark
    When choosing a mark for your brand, it’s important to be original. This helps prevent any mix-ups with other brands and lays a strong foundation for legal protection.
  2. Conduct a thorough trademark search
    Before you settle on a trademark, do your homework to ensure that it’s not already in use. A comprehensive search can help you avoid future legal issues and the possibility of having to rebrand.
  3. Register your trademark
    Officially registering your trademark with the relevant federal authority gives you legal benefits, like the exclusive right to use the mark nationwide in connection with your goods and services.
  4. Monitor and enforce your trademark rights
    Once your trademark is registered, it’s important to keep an eye on it and make sure others aren’t using it without approval. If you find that someone is using your mark, you may need to take legal steps to protect the brand you’ve worked hard to build.

Trademarks are vital for manufacturing businesses as they establish brand identity and consumer trust in the market. They also provide legal protection against competitors using similar branding, ensuring a company’s unique presence and reputation are maintained.

Trade Secrets: Keeping Your Manufacturing Methods Confidential

Trade secrets are the behind-the-scenes aspects of your business. These are the parts of your work that you don’t want competitors to know about because they contribute to your unique success.

Some examples of trade secrets in manufacturing include specialized production techniques, proprietary formulas, custom machine configurations, exclusive supplier lists, and confidential research and development data.

Here are some key benefits to protecting your trade secrets:

  • Maintaining Competitive Advantage: Trade secrets can give a company an edge over competitors by safeguarding methods, processes, formulas, or other proprietary knowledge that is unique to the company.
  • Enhancing Economic Value: When trade secrets are pivotal assets that drive revenue and growth, they can significantly increase the valuation of a company.
  • Preserving Market Position: Keeping trade secrets helps maintain a company’s position in the market by preventing competitors from using the same strategies or techniques to capture market share.
  • Long-Term Protection: They are instrumental for long-term business strategy, as they do not expire (unlike patents) and can provide a perpetual competitive advantage if kept secret.

Overall, trade secrets are valuable strategic tools that can enhance a manufacturing company’s market position and financial stability without the need for formal registration or disclosure.

For tips on keeping your trade secrets secure, read through our blog post that outlines the process.

The Value of a Strategic IP Approach

Creating a solid plan to protect your manufacturing company’s inventions, production methods, and brand is an essential step in transforming these aspects into valuable assets. This proactive approach not only safeguards your unique offerings, but it can also be appealing to potential investors or future buyers; it shows them your commitment to protecting what makes your business profitable and suggests there’s room for increased earnings in the future. A well-managed portfolio of intellectual property is often viewed by investors as a sign of a savvy business that is prepared for expansion.

Developing Your IP Strategy

Partnering with Martin IP Law Group, you will receive expert guidance to build your IP strategy and leverage your intellectual property to its fullest extent.

As you push the boundaries of manufacturing, we will equip you with the confidence to protect your intellectual property and stay ahead in a competitive landscape.

Contact us for expert guidance and to ensure your ideas and brand remain exclusively yours, today and into the future.

Tell Us How We Can Help You

MARTIN IP LAW GROUP, PC

Evansville Headquarters
225 Court Street
Evansville, IN 47708
Phone: (812) 492-4478

Carmel Office
571 Monon Blvd., Second Floor, Ste. 164
Carmel, IN 46032
Phone: (317) 975-0719

info@ipsolutionslaw.com

Copyright © 2016-2024 Martin IP Law Group All rights reserved. No portion of this website maybe used in any manner without the express written consent of Martin IP Law Group.

Skip to content