What was filed
The complaint, ECF No. 1, was filed October 26, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case is Pharmacy Technician Certification Board v. Asyntria, Inc. (f/k/a NPTA-National Pharmacy Technician Association, Inc.) et al., No. 1:26-cv-03752. It runs 16 pages. The plaintiff is Pharmacy Technician Certification Board, described as a District of Columbia non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. The defendants are Asyntria, Inc., formerly known as NPTA-National Pharmacy Technician Association, Inc., which the complaint calls NPTA; Straden-Schaden, Inc.; BPTS-Board of Pharmacy Technician Specialties, Inc.; and Michael Johnston. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that NPTA, Straden-Schaden, and BPTS are Texas for-profit corporations, that Straden-Schaden is doing business as NPTA, that BPTS is affiliated with NPTA, that Michael Johnston resides in Texas, and that he founded NPTA, Straden-Schaden, and BPTS. The complaint is signed by Tiffany E. Payne of Moore & Van Allen PLLC in Charleston, South Carolina. The plaintiff demands a jury.
The mark
The complaint asserts the certification mark CPHT-ADV, U.S. Reg. No. 7,980,089, registered October 14, 2025, for Class B pharmacy services and pharmacy technician services, namely providing expertise in the field of advanced pharmacy and patient care services. It says PTCB first used the mark in commerce on November 18, 2020, applied in January 2022, and uses it for its Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician program. USPTO TSDR lists Pharmacy Technician Certification Board as the owner of Reg. No. 7,980,089 and shows the registration as live on the Principal Register.
What the complaint alleges
The complaint alleges that the defendants are marketing, advertising, offering for sale, and selling certification-related products and services using the CPHT-ADV mark. It says PTCB and NPTA entered a mutual non-disclosure and confidentiality agreement in 2019 so that NPTA could develop education and apply to become a PTCB-recognized education provider, and that NPTA received full approval in 2020 to provide training programs and test-preparation courses for PTCB exams. It alleges that, after an exam security investigation in which PTCB's exam administrator reported severe security breaches by NPTA employee candidates, PTCB sent NPTA a cease-and-desist letter and issued disciplinary rulings against the NPTA employees it says were involved in collecting its confidential exam materials, including Michael Johnston. It alleges that after PTCB terminated NPTA as an approved provider, NPTA launched BPTS to compete with PTCB and to offer credentials copying the names of PTCB's credential programs, including the CPHT-ADV mark. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants offer coursework and certification through cpht.org and, as of October 26, 2026, market a BPTS CPhT-Adv Program there. It says the defendants' use of the mark has caused multiple instances of consumer confusion, including a pharmacy technician who emailed PTCB after taking and passing what she described as the CPhT-Adv required certification through BPTS and who wanted PTCB's CPHT-ADV badge, and that she was denied PTCB's Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician certification because the BPTS certification and coursework do not meet PTCB's requirements. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants' conduct was willful.
Claims and relief requested
PTCB brings one count against all defendants: infringement of a registered U.S. trademark under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. The prayer asks for a permanent injunction against using the CPHT-ADV mark or any confusingly similar mark in connection with the defendants' products or services, and against other conduct it says is likely to cause confusion or otherwise damage PTCB and the mark; the costs of the action; reasonable attorneys' fees; pre- and post-judgment interest; and other relief the court deems just and proper.