Judge Grants in Part XPEL’s Motion to Enter Default Judgment

January 3rd, 2018 by Katherine Coig

The 2016 case brought forth by San Antonio, Texas-based XPEL against three international defendants for trademark infringement has been closed. A senior U.S. district judge granted, in part, XPEL’s motion to enter default judgment, or judge in its favor, against 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.

In December 2016, the company hit the defendants with a lawsuit alleging the three foreign competitors used its registered trademark of its paint protection film (PPF) products. XPEL claimed that the defendants sold products that bore trademarks that were “confusingly similar” to its own.

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. However, no response from any of the defendants was ever filed, and, in August, XPEL motioned for default judgment.

According to the court document, the defendants and respective affiliates must cease using any mark on its products and websites that is “confusingly similar” to XPEL’s trademark.

In addition, the defendants were deemed liable and held responsible to reimburse XPEL for $37,381.00 for attorneys’ fees, with post-judgment interested calculated and compounded until the plaintiff has been paid.

To read the court document, click here.

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: , ,

One comment
Leave a comment »

  1. I am not surprised the Chinese company jumped ship because they were fighting a loosing battle.
    How do you ever expect the defendants to pay the fees when they never even pitched for the case.
    You guys will have to go to China to try to chase them for the money.
    Once again who benefits from these situations, the lawyers.

    Who said life is fair ?
    Anyway at least the chances are that they will not be trading under the ”confusing name”in the USA.
    I wish you better luck in the future.
    Leon Levy Klingshield South Africa

Leave Comment