The complaint

PrimePay, LLC d/b/a "CoAd" v. ProfitKeeperPro.com LLC, No. 8:26-cv-03425 (M.D. Fla., Tampa Division), is a 25-page complaint filed November 11, 2026, ECF No. 1, with a jury demand and Exhibits A to C. PrimePay is a Delaware limited liability company based in Bradenton, Florida. The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that ProfitKeeperPro.com LLC is a Florida limited liability company based in Naples, Florida. It pleads jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338(a), and 1367 and 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (b)(3). (Compl. paras. 2 to 7.)

The marks

The complaint alleges that PrimePay has advertised and sold financial software and services under PROFITKEEPER since 2006 and under PROFITKEEPER BY PRIMEPAY (And Design) since January 2019, for software that automates the collection of financial data, for example for franchisees. USPTO status records show Reg. No. 6,551,795 for PROFITKEEPER in standard characters, registered November 9, 2021, and Reg. No. 6,682,647 for PROFITKEEPER BY PRIMEPAY with a leaf design, with dark grey, light green, and dark green claimed as a feature of the mark, registered March 29, 2022, both on the Principal Register, both owned by PrimePay, LLC, and both for "Accounting services" in Class 35 and "Software as a Service (SAAS) services featuring software for accounting" in Class 42. The complaint calls both marks incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. (Compl. paras. 8 to 31.)

What the complaint alleges

The complaint alleges that ProfitKeeperPro.com sells software and services, primarily to automobile dealerships, that review repair orders and parts invoices and track performance and financial metrics, under the marks ProfitKeeperPro and ProfitKeeperPro.com, and that its website and logo use a lime green color scheme like PrimePay's. Citing the defendant's website, it alleges that the company started no earlier than November 2021, and it alleges, upon information and belief, that the defendant began using its marks in 2021 or later and knew of PrimePay's marks before launching its business and website. It alleges that PrimePay received an inquiry from a third party in the financial services industry who expressed confusion about a supposed business relationship between the companies and raised concerns on social media, including LinkedIn. (Compl. paras. 32 to 60.)

The claims

  • Count I: trademark infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, as to both registrations.
  • Count II: unfair competition by false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A).
  • Count III: Florida common law unfair competition.
  • Count IV: Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.
  • Count V: unjust enrichment.

Relief requested

PrimePay asks for a judgment on each count; preliminary and permanent injunctions against use of its marks or confusingly similar marks; delivery of materials bearing the marks under 15 U.S.C. § 1118; removal of advertising under the marks; a sworn compliance report under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a); an accounting and award of profits and damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, trebled for willfulness; immediate injunctive relief and seizure of any goods bearing counterfeit marks under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d); compensation for unfair competition, including punitive damages; damages under Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.; the amount of the defendant's unjust enrichment; and costs and attorney's fees. (Prayer, paras. A to M.)