Follow Us

Subscribe to our

Newsletter

SAFELITE MOTION TO DISMISS LAWSUIT DENIED BY COURT

Damage To Windshield Crack Repair Market Too Significant To Dismiss

richard-campfield-safelite-lawsuit-update

In this Denied Motion To Dismiss Ultra Bond lawsuit, Safelite arguement that loss of generalized  business opportunities from future products is too speculative to satisfy Article III or Lemark. 


We responded, inter alia, that the undeveloped products at issue are "simply a continuation of Plantiffs' earlier patented Long Crack Windshield Crack Repair products which Plantiffs' have marketed. Safelite disputes this factual assertion.


Because Ultra Bond has alleged lost sales from the current version of its products on market, the  Court finds that  the issue of whether Ultra Bond can seek  additional damages related to an undeveloped product that may or may not be a continuation of an existing product presents a factual issue that is premature at Rule 12(b)(6) stage. Ultra Bond's allegation regarding its sales from current products bring it within the purview of the statute. Safelites arguements regarding statutory standing therefore do not provide a basis for dismissal.


For the foregoing reasons, the Court Grants In Part and Denies Part Safelite's motion to dismiss.

SAFELITE MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED BY COURT LAWSUIT OVERVIEW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF OHIO SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION


RICHARD CAMPFIELD, et al.,


Plaintiffs,                                                                                                    Case No. 2:15-cv-2733


           v.                                                                                                          Judge Michael H. Watson

                                                                                                                        Magistrate Judge Kemp

Safelite Group, Inc., et al.,

     Defendants.



                                                                  OPINION AND ORDER


        Plantiffs Richard Campfield and Ultra Bond, Inc. (collectively, "Ultra Bond")

allege that Defendants Safelite Group, Inc., Safelite Solutions LLC, and Safelite Fullfillment, Inc.

(collectively, "Safelite") misrepresented  the nature and characteristics of Ultra Bond's products

to consumers. Plantiffs bring one claim for relief under section 43(a) of Lanham Act, codified at 15 U.S.C.

1125(a)(1)(B). Safelite now moves to dismiss this claim.


       For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Safelit's motion. Specifically,

the Court DENIES the motion with respect to specific statements on Safelite's website and GRANTS the motion with

respect to the remaining alleged statements.

MORE RELATED SAFELITE LAWSUIT UPDATES....

Share by: