IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Ind.: Rigging company is denied preliminary injunction in trademark and domain name dispute, (Dec 12, 2025)

By Steven Melendez

The claims were precluded by a state law settlement and didn’t meet the requirements of the federal Cybersquatting Act, the court found.

An Indiana federal court denied a preliminary injunction to a rigging company over a former affiliate’s use of the internet domain name engineeredrigging.com domain in a trademark dispute between two competing heavy-lifting machinery companies The plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on its claims because they were precluded by a state law settlement and didn’t meet the requirements for cybersquatting under the Lanham Act (ER Group LLC v. Kitchen, No. 2:25-cv-00472-GSL-AZ (N.D. Ind. Dec. 9, 2025)).

Background. The owner of Engineered Rigging had sued the owners of Kitchen’s Crane alleging they were cybersquatting on the engineeredrigging.com internet domain and redirecting emails sent to addresses there. Engineered Rigging was formed in 2014 as a subsidiary of Kitchen’s Crane, according to the ruling in the case, and its current owner ended his employment with Kitchen’s Crane in 2016. A 2016 separation agreement indicated that trademark rights would belong to a new legal entity. The current Engineered Rigger owner also bought out Kitchen’s Crane’s interest in Engineered Rigging in 2023.

And in 2024, the owners of Kitchen’s Crane sued the owner of Engineered Rigging in Indiana state court, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duties. The parties subsequently settled the case, which was dismissed with prejudice on June 9, 2025. A Comprehensive Settlement Agreement included a mutual release of future claims.

On October 10, 2025, the owner of Engineered Rigging fled his federal complaint, alleging trademark infringement and cybersquatting related to the engineeredrigging.com domain. The Engineered Rigging owner sought a preliminary injunction.

Trademark infringement. The 2016 separation agreement indicates that a new legal entity would have “all naming, website, trademark, logo rights, exclusively” and that the previous Engineered Rigging company would be dissolved.

But, the court found, no evidence was provided about whether that entity was ever created, and the Engineered Rigging owner also alleged that the Kitchen’s Crane owners were partners in Engineered Rigging until being bought out in December 2023. The relevant trademarks also weren’t used until 2017, the court found, all making the significance of the separation agreement unclear.

It’s also unclear whether trademarks held by the Engineered Rigging owner cover the domain name in question, the court found. A case cited by the Engineered Rigging owner failed to sufficiently support the argument that the trademark protection should extend to the domain name, the judge found.

Additionally, the Kitchen’s Crane owners allege that the settlement agreement from the state court lawsuit bars the trademark suit. And in that case, the court found, the Engineered Rigging owner alleged that emails to an engineeredrigging.com address were being improperly diverted. “The allegations here regarding the diversion of emails are virtually identical to the allegations in the underlying state court action, which were resolved by the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement,” the court found, meaning that disputes must be resolved via arbitration, not further litigation.

Also, the Kitchen’s Crane owners paid for the initial domain registration dating back to 2014, according to evidenceprovided by the Engineered Rigging owner, and continued paying for it through 2024. Trademark registration information indicates the current owner didn’t use the Engineered Rigging trademarks until 2017, after the domain was already registered by the Kitchen’s Crane owners, the court found, denying the preliminary injunction for trademark infringement.

Cybersquatting. The court also declined to issue a preliminary injunction under the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA). That law requires “a distinctive or famous mark at the time the domain name was registered by the defendant,” which the Engineered Rigging owner failed to allege, according to the ruling.

The domain name was first registered in 2014, but trademark evidence indicates that the Engineered Rigging marks weren’t used until at least January 2017.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-00472-GSL-AZ.

Judge: Lung, G.

Attorneys: R. Tracy Crump (Crump Law PC) for ER Group LLC d/b/a Engineered Rigging. Andrew T. Shupp (Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP) for Charles Kitchen a/k/a Charles Edward Kitchen and Kimberly Kitchen.

Companies: ER Group LLC d/b/a Engineered Rigging

Cases: Trademark TechnologyInternet IndianaNews