This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 01/07/2022 at 21:39:22 (UTC).

Technicalpeople.com Inc. v. Indeed, Inc.

Case Summary

On November 1, 2021, Technicalpeople.com, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Technical People” or “TP”), represented by Adam Edward Urbanczyk of AU LLC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Indeed, Inc. (“Indeed”, “Indeed.com” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief, damages and all profits received by the Defendant by reason of Defendant’s alleged unlawful acts leading to the infringement of the United States Trademark owned by Plaintiff. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois with Judge Virginia M. Kendall presiding.

 

The Plaintiff filed this case for the alleged infringement of United States Trademarks i.e. TECHNICAL PEOPLE (the “TP Mark”) owned by the Plaintiff.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant is not a licensee of any of Plaintiff’s trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights and Defendant does not source any products or services from Plaintiff. Defendant offers to provide its employment agency and job searching services into this Judicial District. Defendant’s use of the TP Mark to offer its hiring and staffing services is identified herein as the Defendant is not licensed by Plaintiff to use and bear the TP Mark. In addition to explicitly using the Plaintiff’s TP Mark to offer the Defendant’s competing services, the Defendant has also utilized the TP Mark with various SEO and microtargeting functions on web-based search engines. Defendant Indeed.com uses the Plaintiff’s TP Mark to misdirect consumers searching for the Plaintiff’s services and directs them Defendant Indeed.com. Defendant Indeed.com’s advanced SEO team was explicitly made aware of Plaintiff’s rights to the TP Mark as early as April 3, 2019.”

 

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “On information and belief, Defendant has used the Plaintiff’s TP Mark to unfairly optimize search engines (SEO tactics) to micro-target consumers including, but not limited to, explicit copying of Plaintiff’s job postings all the while using the Plaintiff’s TP Mark with no attribution to the posting originating from Plaintiff. Defendant is using the TP Mark in order to unfairly compete with Plaintiff and others for space within search engine results, thereby depriving Plaintiff of marketing which would otherwise be available to Plaintiff and reducing the visibility of Plaintiff’s website on the World Wide Web. Defendant’s unauthorized acts are designed to divert, and will have the result of diverting customers and clients from Plaintiff to Defendant. Defendant’s willful, intentional, and unauthorized use of the TP Mark is likely to cause and is causing confusion, mistake, and deception as to the origin and quality of its competing services among the general public.”

 

There are three claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim alleged deals with Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, 1116(d). The second claim alleged deals with False Designation of Origin, Passing Off, and Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The third claim alleged deals with violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS §510, et seq.).

 

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to permanently enjoin and restrain the Defendant from using the TP Mark or any reproductions, counterfeit copies, or colorable imitations thereof in any manner in connection with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a genuine TP services or is not authorized by Plaintiff to be offered in connection with the TP Mark; that Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff all profits realized by Defendant by reason of Defendant’s unlawful acts; and that Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs along with any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:21-CV-05846

  • Filing Date:

    11/01/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Trademark

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Virginia M. Kendall

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Counter Defendant

Technicalpeople.com Inc.

Defendant and Counter Claimant

Indeed, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Counter Defendant Attorney

Adam Edward Urbanczyk

Attorney at AU LLC

564 W. Randolph St. 2Nd Floor

Chicago, IL 60661

Defendant and Counter Claimant Attorney

Brent P. Ray

Attorney at King & Spalding LLP

110 N Wacker, Suite 3800

Chicago, IL 60606

 

Court Documents

#10

(#10) ANSWER to Complaint and, COUNTERCLAIM filed by Indeed, Inc. against Technicalpeople.com Inc. . by Indeed, Inc.(Ray, Brent) (Entered: 12/28/2021)

#9

(#9) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Defendant's Unopposed Motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead #8 is granted. Answer shall be filed by 12/29/2021. Joint Status Report due by 1/20/2022. Teleconference Initial Status hearing set for 1/25/2022 at 9:00 AM. The parties are directed to Judge Kendall's web page found at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov for information about the Initial Status Report and for information regarding all standing orders for cases on Judge Kendall's docket. The parties shall follow all of the standing orders for Judge Kendall and all Local Rules which can be found at the same web page. For the Initial Status Report, the parties are to report on the following: (1) Possibility of settlement in the case; (2) if no possibility of settlement exists, the nature and length of discovery necessary (with specific dates) to get the case ready for trial; 3) whether the parties jointly consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. At the Initial Status Hearing, the Parties shall be prepared to inform the Court about the extent of monetary damages in order for the Court to address the proportionality of discovery as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Lead counsel is directed to appear at this status hearing. Teleconference instructions are as follows: Prior to the conference call, Please click on this hyper link: https://teleconference.uc.att.com/ecm/?bp=4044432170&mac=2413900. Once you are on Judge Kendall's teleconference page, you are directed to join the conference as A GUEST. It is imperative that you ENTER YOUR NAME and click on the CALL ME option. Fill in your phone number (no hypens) and NAME. You are directed to use the CALL ME option because your name will appear for the Judge and the Court Reporter and they will better be able to discern who is speaking. If you do not have access to a computer Dial: (877)848-7030, the access code is: 2413900#. Given the increased volume of users that is anticipated, you are directed to mute your phone until your case is called. In spite of using the CALL ME option please also remember to SAY YOUR NAME EACH TIME YOU SPEAK so that the record of the proceedings is accurate. You are directed not to use the speaker phone function and to test the sound quality of your listening and speaking device in advance. If you experience an issue being heard or hearing, please log off and either call in or log back in.The Court prefers that you use the procedure that requires that the system calls your phone and you enter your name so that the Court and the Court reporter can see who is speaking during the hearing. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 11/30/2021)

#8

(#8) MOTION by Defendant Indeed, Inc. for extension of time to respond to complaint (Ray, Brent) (Entered: 11/24/2021)

#7

(#7) ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Indeed, Inc. by Brent P. Ray (Ray, Brent) (Entered: 11/24/2021)

#5

(#5) MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials (jn, ) (Entered: 11/02/2021)

#4

(#4) MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. (jn, ) (Entered: 11/02/2021)

#3

(#3) ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Technicalpeople.com Inc. by Adam Edward Urbanczyk (Urbanczyk, Adam) (Entered: 11/01/2021)

#2

(#2) CIVIL Cover Sheet (Urbanczyk, Adam) (Entered: 11/01/2021)

1 #13

Exhibit M

1 #12

Exhibit L

1 #11

Exhibit K

1 #9

Exhibit I

1 #7

Errata G

1 #6

Exhibit F

1 #5

Exhibit E

1 #4

Exhibit D

1 #1

Exhibit A

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT filed by Technicalpeople.com Inc.; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-18829470. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Errata G, #8 Errata H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M)(Urbanczyk, Adam) (Entered: 11/01/2021)

12 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#10) ANSWER to Complaint and, COUNTERCLAIM filed by Indeed, Inc. against Technicalpeople.com Inc. . by Indeed, Inc.(Ray, Brent) (Entered: 12/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Defendant's Unopposed Motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead #8 is granted. Answer shall be filed by 12/29/2021. Joint Status Report due by 1/20/2022. Teleconference Initial Status hearing set for 1/25/2022 at 9:00 AM. The parties are directed to Judge Kendall's web page found at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov for information about the Initial Status Report and for information regarding all standing orders for cases on Judge Kendall's docket. The parties shall follow all of the standing orders for Judge Kendall and all Local Rules which can be found at the same web page. For the Initial Status Report, the parties are to report on the following: (1) Possibility of settlement in the case; (2) if no possibility of settlement exists, the nature and length of discovery necessary (with specific dates) to get the case ready for trial; 3) whether the parties jointly consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. At the Initial Status Hearing, the Parties shall be prepared to inform the Court about the extent of monetary damages in order for the Court to address the proportionality of discovery as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Lead counsel is directed to appear at this status hearing. Teleconference instructions are as follows: Prior to the conference call, Please click on this hyper link: https://teleconference.uc.att.com/ecm/?bp=4044432170&mac=2413900. Once you are on Judge Kendall's teleconference page, you are directed to join the conference as A GUEST. It is imperative that you ENTER YOUR NAME and click on the CALL ME option. Fill in your phone number (no hypens) and NAME. You are directed to use the CALL ME option because your name will appear for the Judge and the Court Reporter and they will better be able to discern who is speaking. If you do not have access to a computer Dial: (877)848-7030, the access code is: 2413900#. Given the increased volume of users that is anticipated, you are directed to mute your phone until your case is called. In spite of using the CALL ME option please also remember to SAY YOUR NAME EACH TIME YOU SPEAK so that the record of the proceedings is accurate. You are directed not to use the speaker phone function and to test the sound quality of your listening and speaking device in advance. If you experience an issue being heard or hearing, please log off and either call in or log back in.The Court prefers that you use the procedure that requires that the system calls your phone and you enter your name so that the Court and the Court reporter can see who is speaking during the hearing. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 11/30/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) MOTION by Defendant Indeed, Inc. for extension of time to respond to complaint (Ray, Brent) (Entered: 11/24/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Indeed, Inc. by Brent P. Ray (Ray, Brent) (Entered: 11/24/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Technicalpeople.com Inc. as to Technicalpeople.com Inc. on 11/5/2021, answer due 11/26/2021. (Urbanczyk, Adam) (Entered: 11/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • DocketSUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Indeed, Inc. (lxk, ) (Entered: 11/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials (jn, ) (Entered: 11/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. (jn, ) (Entered: 11/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • DocketCASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (lxk, ) (Entered: 11/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Technicalpeople.com Inc. by Adam Edward Urbanczyk (Urbanczyk, Adam) (Entered: 11/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) CIVIL Cover Sheet (Urbanczyk, Adam) (Entered: 11/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT filed by Technicalpeople.com Inc.; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-18829470. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Errata G, #8 Errata H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M)(Urbanczyk, Adam) (Entered: 11/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Indeed is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Brent P. Ray