Duro Corporation v. Canadian Standards Association, 1:17-cv-01127

Background

Duro Corporation sells high-end gas ranges; Hyxion (manufacturer in China) allegedly copied Duro designs to make cheaper, visually similar "knock-off" ranges sold in North America.
CSA Group is a product-safety testing organization that issues Certificates of Compliance; Duro’s ranges were CSA-certified and Duro promotes that certification in marketing.
Duro alleges CSA received Duro’s design drawings and test materials under a Product Service Agreement (PSA), then improperly used Duro materials to certify Hyxion products and listed Hyxion as "Hyxion/Duro" on CSA’s website.
Claims in the complaint: (1) Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA); (2) Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA); (3) Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ODTPA); (4) Lanham Act false advertising/unfair competition; (5) breach of contract (unchallenged here).
On CSA’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepted factual allegations as true and evaluated whether each claim was sufficiently pleaded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
OUTSA: Are Duro’s design drawings and CSA test results trade secrets and misappropriated?	Drawings and CSA test results are confidential trade secrets disclosed to CSA under the PSA; CSA used them without authorization to certify Hyxion.	Drawings lost secrecy when provided to Hyxion; PSA does not give Duro exclusive rights to CSA test results so they are not Duro's trade secrets.	Drawing-based OUTSA claim survives: drawings plausibly secret and protected; DTSA test-results cannot be trade secrets because PSA carved out CSA’s independent development and test results are not exclusively Duro’s.
DTSA: Does plaintiff plead misappropriation occurring on/after DTSA effective date (May 11, 2016)?	Alleged continuing misappropriation because CSA certification remains in use and harms Duro.	DTSA is not retroactive; complaint alleges misuse before DTSA effective date; continuing use by Hyxion is not new misappropriation by CSA.	DTSA claim dismissed: no factual allegation CSA misappropriated after DTSA effective date; continuing use by Hyxion does not establish post-2016 misappropriation.
ODTPA: Does CSA’s conduct (general advertising; certification of Hyxion) constitute deceptive trade practice injuring Duro?	CSA’s advertising and certification deceived consumers/retailers and caused Duro lost sales.	Advertising statement beneficial to Duro; no plausible harm from general advertising; only certification plausibly deceptive.	ODTPA claim limited: general CSA advertising not shown to harm Duro; claim survives as to alleged improper certification and website listing (Hyxion/Duro) that plausibly caused confusion and lost sales.
Lanham Act: Is CSA’s certification/website listing "commercial advertising or promotion" intended to influence customers to buy CSA’s goods/services?	Certification listing is commercial speech disseminated to industry and customers and caused confusion/damage.	Lanham Act requires speech intended to influence purchase of defendant’s goods/services; CSA’s certification lacks that economic intent.	Lanham Act claim dismissed with prejudice: alleged harmful statement (certification) does not meet Sixth Circuit requirement that speech be intended to promote the defendant’s own goods/services.

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes pleading standard requiring factual allegations that raise a right to relief above speculative level)
Grubbs v. Sheakley Group, Inc., 807 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2015) (defines "commercial advertising or promotion" elements under the Lanham Act)
Chester County Intermediate Unit v. Pennsylvania Blue Shield, 896 F.2d 808 (3d Cir. 1990) (permissible consideration of complaint exhibits and public records on Rule 12(b)(6))
Jones v. City of Carlisle, 3 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 1993) (pleading construed in favor of non-moving party at motion to dismiss stage)
Thermadyn Corp. v. 3M Co., 593 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Ohio) (elements for an OUTSA claim)