The case
Autotech Technologies, L.P. v. Radwell International, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-10010 (N.D. Ill.), is before Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman. The order describes Autotech as a specialized engineering company that designs and manufactures specialty automation control products for industrial settings, and Radwell as an industrial parts and repair business whose online store lists components in four conditions: Refurbished, Never Used Radwell Packaging, Never Used Original Packaging, and New Product. Radwell was an official distributor of certain Autotech products under a May 12, 2022 agreement that Autotech terminated in March 2026; Radwell says it now sells Autotech products only as a secondhand seller. Autotech filed the complaint and its motion on August 19, 2026, alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and trade libel or product disparagement. Autotech later withdrew its request for a temporary restraining order.
The motion to strike
Autotech filed six declarations after its opening motion, two of them without leave. The court found that they substantially expanded on the evidence and argument in Autotech's brief and that relying on them would prejudice Radwell, pointing to Autotech's argument that the record had overtaken Radwell's first sale defense. It struck the two supplemental declarations, parts of a third, and the portions of Autotech's reply that relied on them. It declined to strike the other challenged materials, because they were also properly filed as exhibits to Autotech's motion for an evidentiary hearing, but gave them no consideration on the injunction.
Why the injunction was denied
Noting that Autotech's brief never invoked any of its five counts by name, the court read the motion as resting only on the Lanham Act counts under 15 U.S.C. 1114 and 1125(a), the sections the brief cited. It found Autotech's marks protectable under at least section 1125(a), which Radwell did not dispute. It declined to decide Radwell's first sale defense, reasoning that the doctrine may cover some listings, such as New Product, but not Refurbished goods. On confusion, it held that Autotech's argument that a material differences analysis replaces the ordinary confusion analysis was mistaken, because material differences belong to the first sale defense, and that Autotech made no argument on the seven confusion factors even after Radwell raised them. The court added that, even with such an argument, it was skeptical Autotech would prevail: Radwell had convincingly argued that its customers for specialized industrial automation products are highly sophisticated buyers, Radwell said, and Autotech did not dispute, that every Autotech listing carries a disclaimer that Radwell is not an authorized distributor and has no affiliation with Autotech, and Autotech identified no evidence of actual confusion in the record the court considered. A letter filed with Autotech's hearing motion, the court said, provides some evidence of actual confusion but is insufficient by itself.
What the court said about the ruling
The court denied the motion without reaching irreparable harm or adequacy of legal remedies, and denied Autotech's motion for an evidentiary hearing. It said the ruling expresses no view on whether Autotech's claims could survive a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.