XPEL Requests Default in Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

August 2nd, 2017 by Jordan Scott

XPEL recently requested for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division to enter default, or judge in its favor, against three international defendants: Carlas International Automobile Accessory Limited (Carlas), Guangzhou Suizhong Auto Accessories Co. Ltd. (Suizhong) and Guangzhou Suizhong Auto Accessories.

A side-by-side comparison of the Defendants’ booth at 2016 SEMA, alongside XPEL’s booth at 2016 SEMA. Photo is courtesy of the court document.

According to a recently filed court document, the defendants did not give an answer or response to the court in regards to the plaintiff’s trademark infringement complaint, despite an extension.

XPEL sent an email to the defendants on July 17, four days past the court’s issued response deadline, requesting an answer. The email advised that if no answer was given by July 24, the company would request default in the case.

The defendants requested an extension on June 16, citing their ongoing efforts to find a U.S. lawyer to represent them in the case. Shuizhong, a Chinese company, said the Chinese government would not allow them to leave the country while another court case is ongoing.

According to the lawsuit, the three foreign competitors have used XPEL’s registered trademark of its paint protection film (PPF) products. XPEL claimed that the defendants are related entities, and/or are working in concert with each other in the business of marketing and selling the products concerned, which bear trademarks that are “confusingly similar” to its trademark.

The plaintiff learned of the trademark similarity at the 2016 SEMA Tradeshow, according to court documents. The defendants’ products are marketed and sold under the trademark “XPPF.”

This article is from Focus on Film, the weekly e-newsletter that covers the latest news regarding window film and related products, including paint protection film. Click HERE to sign up—there is no charge. Interested in a deeper dive? Free subscriptions to Window Film magazine in print or digital format are available. Subscribe at no charge HERE.

Tags: , , ,

2 comments
Leave a comment »

  1. Honestly I don’t see the similarity. In fact, XPPF makes more sense than XPEL. XPEL shouldn’t be too upset about a “similar” name considering they have a similar product to another big name company.

  2. So now what are Expel going to do if they get the this judgement or default ?Are they going to fly to China to look for these copy cats.
    It sounds like a waste of money and time to me ? Can anybody throw some light on this subject.
    Leon Levy Klingshield South Africa

Leave Comment