Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2020 Sept 30 1:14 PM-20CV006425
12/31/2020 (“TPCCA 2019 Policy”), attached hereto as Exhibit E.
UNDERLYING LITIGATION
8. On or about August 8, 2015, underlying claimants Richard Campfield (“Campfield”) and Ultra Bond, Inc (“Ultra Bond”) (and together with Campfield,
the “Claimants”) initiated litigation against SGI, SSLLC, and SFI by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
(the “Underlying Litigation”).
9. The Underlying Litigation is captioned “Richard Campfield, et al. v. Safelite Group, Inc., et al.” and is currently proceeding under Docket No.
2:15-cv-02733-
10. On or about February 7, 2018, the Claimants filed an amended complaint in the Underlying Litigation (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended
Complaint is the operative complaint in the still-pending Underlying Litigation and is attached hereto, with exhibits, as Exhibit F.
11. In the Amended Complaint, the Claimants seek damages under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), in connection with
Safelite's advertisements. Exhibit F at $ 1.
12. In the Amended Complaint, the Claimants allege that Safelite is the country's largest retailer of vehicle glass repair and replacement services.
Exhibit F at 2.
13. In the Amended Complaint, the Claimants allege that Safelite's “entire business model for influencing the purchasing decisions by individual and
commercial consumers of its [vehicle glass repair and replacement] services has been built around one central, but literally false, premise at the heart
of Safelite's long-standing organized marketing campaign: that a windshield must be replaced if a windshield crack in it is longer [than] six inches.”
Exhibit F at $ 4
14. In the Amended Complaint, the Claimants allege that Safelite's internal documents reveal that Safelite knows there is no scientific basis for stating
that safe repair of windshield cracks must follow this “six inch” rule. Exhibit F at $ 6.
15. In the Amended Complaint, the Claimants allege that Campfield is an inventor who, along with Ultra Bond, holds or has held several patents related to
the repair of windshield cracks longer than six inches. Exhibit F at $ 27.
16. In the Amended Complaint, the Claimants allege that Safelite's false statements that windshield cracks over six inches are not repairable under any
circumstances have “directly damaged the business of [the Claimants], who are competitors of[Safelite], and who sell products that safely repair
windshield cracks longer than six inches.” Exhibit F at $ 28.
17. In the Amended Complaint, the Claimants request injunctive relief, disgorgement, damages including lost profits, attorney's fees, costs, and interest.
Exhibit F at Prayer for Relief.
18. Nowhere in the 57-page, 151-paragraph Amended Complaint do the Claimants allege that Safelite's advertising mentioned Campfield or Ultra Bond
by name or even described Claimants' product.
