XPEL sues The Detail RX d/b/a The Detail Doctor and Arlia Auto Group over alleged XPEL mark use and paint-protection reviews

What was filed

The case is XPEL, Inc. v. The Detail RX, Ltd. d/b/a The Detail Doctor, Arlia Auto Group LLC, and Gregory Arlia, No. 7:26-cv-09612 (S.D.N.Y.), filed November 3, 2026, ECF No. 1 (28 pages), with a jury demand. The complaint describes XPEL, Inc. as a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas. It alleges, on information and belief, that The Detail RX, Ltd. doing business as The Detail Doctor is a New York business corporation based in Mahopac, New York; that Arlia Auto Group LLC is a New York limited liability company based in Mahopac; and that the individual defendant resides in Yorktown Heights, New York. A November 4, 2026 case-opening notice assigns the case to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke, and a docket entry the same day designates Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik to handle matters that may be referred. The docket shows electronic summonses issued November 4, 2026 as to each defendant and an AO 120 trademark form submitted the same day.

The marks

United States Patent and Trademark Office records list XPEL, INC. as the owner of U.S. Reg. No. 3,542,360 for XPEL, registered December 9, 2008 on the Principal Register, Serial No. 76/688,462, an illustration drawing that includes the word XPEL, for plastic film for protecting paint and glass and kits containing that film in International Class 17, with first use and first use in commerce claimed as of December 2007. TSDR shows a Section 8 declaration accepted and a Section 15 declaration acknowledged on May 5, 2014, and the registration renewed on February 2, 2018; its status reads that the registration has been renewed. The complaint also asserts common-law rights in XPEL marks used in the after-market automotive and parts industry, and it says the registered mark is incontestable.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint alleges that XPEL makes and sells after-market automotive paint-protection films and related products and services under the XPEL marks. It alleges, on information and belief, that The Detail Doctor is a paint-protection-film installation shop owned and operated by the individual defendant and that Arlia Auto Group is a business the individual defendant owns and operates. It alleges that in and around December 2021 the defendants became an Authorized XPEL Dealer on the condition that they offer only XPEL tints, paint protection films, and coatings, and that at least as early as February 2025 they were no longer an authorized dealer after declining to remain exclusive. It alleges that starting in and around June 2026 the defendants posted "Paint Protection Film Review" videos on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok that disparage XPEL and its products, that they did not disclose that the reviews were paid sponsorships, and, on information and belief, that they secretly received compensation from third parties for favorable reviews of competing products. It further alleges that the defendants kept displaying XPEL trademarks and logos on signage, their website, and social media after the dealer relationship ended, and on their website and social media after a July 9, 2026 cease and desist letter, and, on information and belief, that they lure customers with the promise of XPEL film and then install third-party films.

Claims and relief

Count I is deceptive trade practices under New York General Business Law § 349. Count II is false advertising under New York General Business Law § 350. Count III is unfair competition, false designation of origin, passing off, and false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Count IV is defamation. Count V is unfair competition under New York common law. Count VI is unjust enrichment under New York common law. Count VII is trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). Count VIII is common-law trademark infringement. The prayer seeks a permanent injunction against use of the XPEL marks and related passing-off conduct, a compliance report under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), delivery up for destruction of infringing materials, an order to take down the defendants' website and identified social media pages until all confusingly similar use of the XPEL marks is removed, damages and an accounting of profits, three times the defendants' profits or XPEL's damages, whichever is greater, an exceptional-case finding and attorney fees under § 1117, exemplary damages, costs, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest.