Richard Campfield, Ultra Bond owner and president, filed a motion in Ohio’s federal court seeking a summary judgement in certain aspects of Ultra Bond’s Lanham Act claim and Safelite’s counterclaim in its lawsuit against Safelite Group, Inc., Safelite Solutions LLC, and Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. (Safelite).
The court has yet to respond to Campfield’s request.
According to the court’s motion, Campfield believes a summary judgement should be granted in its Lanham Act claim for two main reasons:
- “Safelite’s organized marketing campaign promoted the dollar bill rule as an objective standard for windshield repair (as opposed to a Safelite company standard) constitutes “commercial advertising or promotion” and;
- Safelite’s self-described statements, and similar affirmative misrepresentations about the safety of repairing windshield cracks longer than six inches, made directly to insurers or end consumers as part of its organized marketing campaign are literally false and violate the Lanham Act.”
Campfield also contends that Safelite’s counterclaims fail to stand in court.
“Safelite bases its Unfair Competition claim on allegations that Plaintiffs circulated false rumors regarding Safelite’s business practices and use of the dollar bill rule through its website and statements to members to the VGRR [vehicle glass repair and replacement] industry, in part, to generate attention for [Plaintiffs’] baseless Lanham Act lawsuit against [Safelite]. Safelite’s claim fails as a matter of law because there is no evidence that Plaintiffs made a false representation of fact; or even assuming arguendo that there was a false representation, that any such representation harmed Safelite,” a portion of Campfield’s motion reads.
The lawsuit began in 2015 when Campfield alleged Safelite had misleading advertising that favors replacement of windshields rather than repairs of long cracks, which have “wiped out a large portion (if not most) of the market for Ultra Bond’s products and services.” Campfield claimed Safelite’s advertisements and statements were false and damaged his business, which according to court documents, does windshield repairs with long cracks.