HBI Innovations sues Schedule A online sellers over RAW rolling paper marks and a design patent

What was filed

The complaint is Document 1, filed October 27, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is HBI Innovations, LLP v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 1:26-cv-09380. It runs 24 pages. The complaint says Schedule A identifies the defendants and that HBI is filing a motion to temporarily seal it at the same time. The docket shows the motion to seal and, filed the same day, a proposed order to show cause without emergency relief, a memorandum of law, and three declarations in support. The defendants' names and store accounts are not on the public docket. HBI demands a jury.

The plaintiff and the RAW Intellectual Property

The complaint describes HBI Innovations, LLP as an Arizona limited liability partnership based in Phoenix, Arizona, formerly known as BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP d/b/a HBI International, and as a supplier and distributor of rolling papers and smoking accessories marketed under RAW. It lists seven registrations it calls the RAW Trademarks: Nos. 3,422,929 (May 6, 2008); 4,074,036 (December 20, 2011); 4,647,824 (December 2, 2014); 4,675,473 (January 20, 2015); 6,469,902 (August 31, 2021); 7,437,659 (July 9, 2024); and 7,676,512 (February 4, 2025). USPTO TSDR lists all seven as live registrations on the Principal Register owned by HBI Innovations LLP. Captions in the complaint identify Reg. Nos. 6,469,902 and 7,437,659 with Raw Black Classic Rolling Papers and Reg. No. 4,074,036 with a Rawtomatic Rolling Box. The complaint also says HBI owns U.S. Design Patent No. D802,036 S, issued November 7, 2017, which it calls the RAW Patent and identifies with its Raw Cone Loader product. The patent is titled "Loading device for placing a substance in a pre-rolled cone" and names BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP, HBI's former name, as assignee.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint alleges that the defendants operate fully interactive commercial internet stores under the Schedule A marketplace accounts, on platforms including eBay, Shein, and Temu, and that they advertise, market, and sell unauthorized products by reference to marks identical or substantially similar to the RAW Trademarks, or that embody the design shown in the RAW Patent. It alleges the stores are designed to appear to sell genuine RAW products while selling inferior imitations, that they share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities among the products offered, suggesting that the defendants' operations arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, and that, on information and belief, the defendants reside mainly in the People's Republic of China. It alleges HBI has not licensed or authorized them and that none is an authorized RAW retailer. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants had knowledge of HBI's rights and willfully used counterfeits of the RAW Trademarks, and that the use is likely to cause and has caused confusion, mistake, and deception among consumers.

Claims and relief requested

HBI brings four causes of action against the Schedule A defendants: trademark infringement and counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1117 (First Cause of Action); false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Second Cause of Action); design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Third Cause of Action); and unfair competition under New York common law (Fourth Cause of Action). The prayer asks for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions against use of the RAW Intellectual Property on unauthorized products; an order that marketplace platforms including eBay, Shein, and Temu disable defendant accounts and related ads; an accounting of profits, with trademark damages increased by up to three times under 15 U.S.C. § 1117; patent profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289; in the alternative, trademark statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) of not less than $1,000 and not more than $2,000,000 for each use of the RAW Trademarks and patent statutory damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 of not less than $250 for each use of the RAW Patent; attorneys' fees and costs; and other relief the court deems just and proper.