Noco Company v. Reclaimed Assets Group LLC, 1:21-cv-01833

NOCO designs, manufactures, and sells battery-related products and limits distribution to direct sales and authorized resellers under reseller agreements that prohibit bulk/wholesale sales.
NOCO alleges RA Group, a Michigan LLC, purchased NOCO products in bulk from authorized resellers and resold them on Amazon as "new" without NOCO authorization, potentially depriving purchasers of NOCO's manufacturer warranty.
NOCO sued RA Group for federal trademark infringement (Lanham Act), trademark dilution, unfair competition, tortious interference with contract, and Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices; RA Group did not respond.
The Clerk entered default; NOCO moved for default judgment.
The court treated the complaint allegations as admitted, granted default judgment on trademark infringement, dilution, unfair competition, and Ohio deceptive-practices claims, denied default judgment on the tortious-interference claim for insufficient factual allegations, declined to award declaratory or injunctive relief, and awarded $8,000 in damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trademark infringement / Unfair competition / Ohio DTPA	RA Group resold NOCO goods as "new" without authorization; first-sale defense inapplicable because presentation and warranty differences cause consumer confusion/material difference	No response; default — allegations deemed admitted	Granted default judgment on these claims (facts accepted); damages limited to $8,000; court declined injunctive/declaratory relief
Trademark dilution	NOCO's marks are famous/distinctive; RA Group's post-registration resale in commerce dilutes mark by selling as "new"	No response; default	Granted default judgment on dilution claim; court declined injunctive/declaratory relief
Tortious interference with contract	RA Group knew of reseller contracts and prohibition on bulk sales and intentionally procured breaches	No response; default — but plaintiff offered only conclusory allegations	Denied default judgment: plaintiff failed to plead facts showing RA Group's knowledge of specific contracts
Relief: Declaratory judgment, permanent injunction, and damages	Requests declaration of trademark violation, permanent injunction barring future sales, and disgorgement of RA Group's resale revenues	No response; default; equitable discretion applies	Court exercised discretion: denied declaratory and injunctive relief; awarded $8,000 in damages (limited because NOCO already received sale proceeds upstream and injury was marginal)

Brilliance Audio, Inc. v. Haights Cross Commc'ns, Inc., 474 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2007) (explains first-sale exception and when reseller liability exists)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards: no mere conclusory allegations)
NCR Corp. v. Korala Assocs., Ltd., 512 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2008) (elements for tortious interference with contract)
Adrian Energy Assocs. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 481 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2007) (discretion under Declaratory Judgment Act)
Audi AG v. D'Amato, 469 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2006) (four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief)
U.S. Structures, Inc. v. J.P. Structures, Inc., 130 F.3d 1185 (6th Cir. 1997) (district court discretion in awarding trademark damages)