What was filed

The complaint is Document 1, filed October 26, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The case is Siniora Food Industries Company PLC and Siniora Food Industries, USA, Inc. v. International Golden Foods, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-14092-SJM-APP, assigned to Judge Stephen J. Murphy III, with Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. The plaintiffs demand a jury. The complaint describes Siniora Food Industries Company PLC (Siniora) as a Jordanian public shareholding company based in Amman, Jordan; Siniora Food Industries, USA, Inc. as its Delaware subsidiary based in Dearborn, Michigan; and IGF as an Illinois corporation based in Bensenville, Illinois.

The mark and the 2024 sale

The complaint centers on SINIORA, U.S. Reg. No. 2,853,886 (registered June 15, 2004) for meat in International Class 29. It alleges the registration is incontestable under 15 U.S.C. 1065 and that USPTO records now list Siniora as owner. USPTO TSDR records list Reg. No. 2,853,886 as live with current owner Siniora Food Industries Company. The complaint alleges that in August 2024 IGF sold the SINIORA trademark to Siniora for $2,000,000, conveying the registration, associated goodwill, trade dress and packaging, and inventories, and covenanting that IGF would never again use SINIORA or anything confusingly similar anywhere in the world. It also alleges a five-year covenant, running from August 15, 2024, under which IGF agreed not to engage in the processed meat business without Siniora's written consent.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint alleges that after the closing IGF continued to sell canned luncheon meat bearing the SINIORA mark and packaging designs it sold, including through distributors, and that IGF has advertised SINIORA among its "own brands." As an example, it cites a May 14, 2026 IGF invoice to a retail supermarket that included cases of SINIORA-branded chicken, chicken and beef, and turkey luncheon meat. It alleges that the parties never reached the distribution or royalty agreement the sale documents contemplated, and that Siniora never consented to IGF's continued sales. It further alleges, on information and belief, that IGF knew Siniora intended to build its United States business from Dearborn, Michigan.

Claims and relief requested

Count I alleges federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114(1) (Siniora against IGF). Count II, brought by both plaintiffs, alleges false designation of origin and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A). Count III, brought by Siniora, alleges breach of the non-use and non-competition covenants in the purchase agreement. Count IV, brought by both plaintiffs, alleges common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The prayer seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction under 15 U.S.C. 1116 and the agreement, without a bond; recall and destruction of infringing goods and materials under 15 U.S.C. 1118; IGF's profits and the plaintiffs' damages, enhanced, under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a); contract damages and specific performance of the covenants; exemplary damages on the common-law claim; and attorneys' fees.