Artivo sues over PALACIO flooring marks and alleged trade-secret diversion: complaint allegations

What was filed

The CourtListener docket lists a complaint filed on September 25, 2026, as Document 1, with a jury demand. The plaintiffs are Artivo Surfaces, LLC and Galleher LLC. The named defendants are Scott Bertram and HF Design, LLC, plus Doe defendants. The case is No. 3:26-cv-10940 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, assigned to Judge Edward M. Chen. The nature of suit is 840 Trademark, and the cause is listed as 15 U.S.C. § 1114 trademark infringement. The docket does not show a judgment.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint is not only a trademark case. It leads with federal trade-secret misappropriation under 18 U.S.C. § 1836 and California trade-secret claims, then adds Lanham Act and common-law trademark counts, unfair competition, conversion, interference, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.

On the trademark side, the complaint says Artivo owns the federally registered mark PALACIO, U.S. Registration No. 4,802,815, covering hardwood flooring and related products, and that the registration is incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. It describes Palacio Americano Grande and Palacio Amora collections marketed under that mark. It alleges that HF Design decided to move the Americano Grande and Amora lines to Tri-West, a competing distributor, that HF Design and Tri-West planned to get retailers to relabel Galleher's Palacio-branded displays, and that Tri-West intended to keep using the Americano Grande and Amora names. It alleges that Bertram, Galleher's former Director of Sales for Northern California, downloaded sales data and internal reports, including display placement reports, before he resigned and joined HF Design, and, on information and belief, that he conspired with HF Design and Tri-West to misuse that information and to infringe the PALACIO mark and the collection names.

The Lanham Act counts plead infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) and unfair competition under § 1125(a). The prayer seeks injunctive relief, damages, disgorgement, and related remedies. That is a prayer for relief. A court has not granted it.

A complaint is not a ruling

None of this is a finding. The complaint tells you what Artivo and Galleher allege about trade secrets and the PALACIO mark. It does not tell you that Bertram or HF Design misappropriated secrets or infringed. The court has not decided the case.