The parties and the marks

The case is Cyberdoor Systems Pty. Ltd. and Autoslide Pty. Ltd. v. Joseph J. Castonguay and Smart Access Labs LLC, No. 8:26-cv-03339 (M.D. Fla.), filed November 3, 2026, ECF No. 1 (47 pages), with a jury demand. The complaint says Cyberdoor, which specializes in automatic door installation and service, is wholly owned by Autoslide, which designs and manufactures automatic door and window systems. It alleges, on information and belief, that Castonguay lives in Tampa, Florida, and that Smart Access is a Florida limited liability company based in Tampa for which Castonguay is the authorized member and registered agent.

The complaint relies on two Principal Register registrations, both for electric door openers and closers, sliding door mechanisms, remote control apparatus, drive units, and door sensors in Class 9: U.S. Reg. No. 4,270,632 for the standard character mark AUTOSLIDE, registered January 8, 2013, and U.S. Reg. No. 4,420,477 for AUTOSLIDE and a sliding door design, registered October 22, 2013. USPTO records list both registrations as live and renewed, with Cyberdoor Systems Pty. Ltd. as the current owner. The complaint says an earlier owner assigned the marks to Autoslide in July 2024, and that Autoslide assigned them to Cyberdoor by an assignment dated May 11, 2026, recorded June 16, 2026.

The accused website

The complaint says Castonguay is president of Autoslide's former exclusive U.S. distributor, and that by a September 5, 2026 email Autoslide ended that distribution relationship and told him a new exclusive U.S. distributor would take over beginning in October 2026. It alleges that in about September 2026 Castonguay, purporting to act for a third-party door company with which Autoslide does not believe he was ever affiliated, created the website at shopautoslide.com, displayed the AUTOSLIDE mark in its top left corner, stated that the door company had partnered with Autoslide to bring its product to the U.S. market, linked the site's About Us text to Autoslide's own site, and listed Autoslide's own inquiry email address on the Contact Us page. The complaint says Cyberdoor, through counsel, sent a demand letter to Castonguay and the door company on September 11, 2026, and that a September 18, 2026 response from a person who said he was counsel for another company questioned whether Cyberdoor owns the marks.

According to the complaint, Castonguay became affiliated with Smart Access after the demand letter, and on or about September 17, 2026 he revised the site to remove the door company and the AUTOSLIDE marks and to carry the Smart Access name and logo. The revised About Us page states that "Autoslide is a Smart Access company" that designs and manufactures automatic door and window systems, and that "We're an independent North American company, separate from the Autoslide entity in Australia." The complaint alleges this falsely represents that Smart Access owns Autoslide. It alleges that the revised Contact Us page lists Autoslide as the company to contact and gives an email address at the shopautoslide.com domain, which, on information and belief, Castonguay still uses, and that the defendants continue to use the revised site and the domain.

The claims

The complaint pleads twelve counts, each brought by both plaintiffs, in pairs against Castonguay alone and then against Castonguay and Smart Access: trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (Counts I and II); federal unfair competition and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Counts III and IV); cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (Counts V and VI); false advertising under Fla. Stat. § 817.41 (Counts VII and VIII); the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 (Counts IX and X); and Florida common law unfair competition (Counts XI and XII). The infringement counts allege that Castonguay, and then both defendants, knowingly and intentionally counterfeited the marks, and each count against both defendants alleges that Smart Access is vicariously liable for Castonguay's acts.

The prayer asks for temporary and permanent injunctions, forfeiture or cancellation of the original and revised webpages, an accounting of profits and damages, statutory damages of $1,000 to $200,000 per counterfeit mark or up to $2,000,000 for willful use of a counterfeit mark, statutory damages of $1,000 to $100,000 per domain name, enhanced damages and profits, treble damages and attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b), compensatory and consequential damages, and punitive damages if the plaintiffs obtain leave to add a punitive damages claim under Fla. Stat. § 768.72, or alternatively otherwise. Both cybersquatting counts also ask for transfer of the domain, Count V to the plaintiffs.

Docket

The docket shows only the complaint, filed November 3, 2026 (ECF No. 1), with twelve exhibits and a civil cover sheet.