Kindig-it Design is an auto body shop based in Utah. The company primarily focuses on car design, restoring vehicles for a highly demanding clientele. Kindig-it designs was originally founded by husband-and-wife duo, Dave Kindig, and Charity Kindig.
An exploration of Kindig’s Instagram page shows that they have been busying themselves with some fascinating renovations. Dave and his team recently worked on a red 65 mustang, and a stunning 63 Corvette.
Despite all the good work they do, team Kindig-it has found itself on the backend of a few legal issues. So what happened to Kindig IT Design and Bitchin’ Rides team?
Back in 2015, Kindig-it Designs decided to take Creative Controls, a company based in Michigan, to court. The Kindig-it team’s decision to sue the Michigan company stemmed from the fact the former had allegedly stolen their patents and products.
In response to this, Creative Controls countersued Kindig-it, claiming that the Utah court they were summoned to had no jurisdiction.
This is because their company is in Michigan. In their defence, Creative Control maintained that the only kind of contact they had with Utah was through their established website.
Furthermore, the proprietors of Creative Controls re-affirmed that their site only offers products which they have made themselves.
Aside from the issue of copyright infringement, Kindig-it also alleged that Creative Controls had used images related to their company without permission. However, Creative Controls revealed that the Kindig-it team had given them the go-ahead to use the images via a letter.
Updates on court proceedings.
The court ruled in favour of both companies on varying counts. To begin with, they found that Kindig-it Designs had sufficiently proved that Creative Controls had indeed been in contact with clientele based in Utah.
Despite this, they could not definitely prove that Creative Controls had infringed on any of their products. The court determined that there was no case for copyright-related issues.
Moreover, the Utah court also determined that they could use Creative Controls’ established website as a case for personal jurisdiction.
They argued that the website the company set up was not specifically set to target customers from a specific area. Instead, Creative Controls catered to anyone with access to their website. They shouldn’t be penalised just because their site attracted business from Utah.