Alo sues an individual Texas seller over alleged counterfeit ALO apparel sold through Facebook

What was filed

Alo, LLC filed the complaint on October 23, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division. The case is Alo, LLC v. Robinson, No. 9:26-cv-00944, assigned to Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle. The defendants are Clayton Robinson, an individual the complaint says, on information and belief, lives in Nacogdoches, Texas, and John Does 1 to 7, described as businesses and individuals in the Nacogdoches area. The complaint is signed by Olivia E. Justice of Hilgers PLLC in Dallas and also lists Michael Merriman of Hilgers PLLC in San Diego. Alo demands a jury.

The marks

Alo, a California limited liability company in Los Angeles County, asserts the ALO Marks and lists six registrations: ALO (Reg. Nos. 3,875,869 and 5,172,309), ALO SPORT (Reg. No. 4,519,311), ALO YOGA (Reg. No. 5,172,308) and ALOSOFT (Reg. Nos. 6,137,833 and 8,180,701). The complaint says Reg. Nos. 3,875,869, 5,172,309, 4,519,311 and 5,172,308 are incontestable. USPTO records list Alo, LLC as owner of all six and show each as live: the 3,875,869 and 4,519,311 registrations renewed, Sections 8 and 15 declarations accepted for 5,172,309 and 5,172,308, and 6,137,833 and 8,180,701 registered, with registration dates from November 16, 2010 to March 17, 2026.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint alleges that the defendants sold apparel and headwear bearing reproductions of the ALO Marks, and it alleges, on information and belief, that they advertised the goods under the names The Vault, The Vault Apparel and The Vault Apparel 33 on Facebook, TikTok and a Shopify site. It says an Alo representative bought a shirt and short set bearing the ALO and ALO YOGA marks through Facebook on July 7, 2026, paid by Zelle to an account it ties to the individual defendant, and received the package by mail on July 10, 2026 with a Nacogdoches return address. It says Alo inspected the products or photographs of them and confirmed that the ALO-branded products are counterfeit, and alleges the defendants also offer goods bearing other brands' marks. It alleges, on information and belief, that the sales were knowing and intentional or made with willful ignorance of the counterfeit nature of the goods.

The claims and relief requested

Alo pleads five counts against all defendants: trademark infringement and counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. 1114(1); false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A); false advertising under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B); Texas common law trademark infringement; and Texas common law unfair competition. It asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing goods under 15 U.S.C. 1118, seizure of goods and records under 15 U.S.C. 1116, including on ex parte application, an accounting, an asset freeze or constructive trust, a finding of willful and exceptional infringement, actual damages and profits or, in the alternative, statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. 1117(c) of $2,000,000 for each counterfeit mark willfully used per type of goods, enhanced damages, fees, interest and costs.