According to the latest documents in a trademark case that hinges on one letter, Safelite Group and Safelife Auto Glass may soon reach a settlement.
Safelite Group filed suit against Safelife Auto Glass on March 25 for alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution and related Illinois state laws. Safelite claims that Safelife used a similar name and similar branding to appeal to potential Safelite customers in that area, and asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, to ban Safelife from affiliating itself with the Ohio-based company or using its name and branding or any similar name and branding.
Safelite alleges Safelife founder, former Safelite employee Obed Alarquan, founded the company while he still worked for Safelite. Alarquan filed a response to Safelite’s complaint on April 29. Alarquan claims he never received a cease-and-desist letter from Safelite and, once he heard about the complaint, changed his shop’s name and removed it from “all branding and designs that could resemble or suggest any affiliation with [Safelite],” including the shop’s website. Alarquan says he communicated with Safelite’s attorneys “multiple times to confirm these changes and respectfully request a voluntary dismissal of the case.”
In its initial legal complaint, Safelite included screenshots of Safelife’s website seemingly showing it offered service in Wisconsin and Chicago. Safelife owner Obed Alarquan claims the company only operates in Wisconsin.
When filing suit, Safelite alleged that Safelife operated in Wisconsin and Chicago, but Alarquan claims the former Safelife Auto Glass only operates in Wisconsin.
“[Alarquan] is the sole proprietor and the only individual working in his business,” the response says. “The business is very small and barely generates enough income to support him and his family. [Alarquan] never intended to confuse customers, compete unfairly with [Safelite] or benefit from [Safelite’s] reputation.”
Alarquan says he selected the name “Safelife” to “emphasize safety and protection of life,” not to mislead customers. His legal response also claims he was no longer working for Safelite when he created the company. Alarquan later moved to dismiss the case, claiming an Illinois court has no jurisdiction over his allegedly Wisconsin-based business.
Safelite claimed Alarquan’s response didn’t “answer, plead or otherwise defend” the allegations against his company. According to a court document filed June 3, Safelite requested the court default in its favor because Alarquan hadn’t responded to their communications about the case. In a separate document filed the same day, Safelite claimed Safelife’s motion to dismiss the case was invalid because the company filed it after it had already responded to Safelite.
According to June 17 court records, Judge Jeffrey Cummings decided to consider Safelite’s motion to default and ordered both parties to file a joint status report on settlement negotiations.
Safelite and Safelife filed the report on July 11, saying they had “exchanged settlement offers but not reached an agreement.” Safelite delivered written settlement documents to Alarquan, the report says, and Alarquan noted again that his business no longer used the name Safelife.
Both parties demonstrated willingness to participate in a settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge, the report says. Alarquan wants to hold the conference before the judge grants Safelite’s default request, but Safelite would prefer to meet after. A conference date has not yet been set.
