A manufacturer of battery chargers and related products has accused a distributor of selling products that use its brand without authorization, raising concerns about consumer confusion and the integrity of its intellectual property. The complaint was filed by The NOCO Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on April 17, 2026, naming Factory Depot Distribution Center as the defendant.
According to the filing, the plaintiff alleges that Factory Depot is engaged in “the unauthorized sale of materially different products that bear NOCO’s brand, copyrights, and trademarks,” which NOCO claims infringes upon its intellectual property rights. The complaint states that although some products sold by Factory Depot may have been manufactured by NOCO, they are “materially different from the products received by consumers when purchased from NOCO or through NOCO’s authorized channels.” Specifically, the plaintiff argues that consumers who purchase from Factory Depot do not receive warranty coverage, customer service support, or assurance of quality controls provided by authorized channels.
The document outlines several causes of action including trademark infringement under federal law (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125), trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)), unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), violations of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (O.R.C. 4165.02), tortious interference with contract, and false advertising. NOCO asserts ownership over several registered trademarks such as NOCO, NOCO BOOST, and ULTRASAFE, as well as copyrights in marketing content and product images.
NOCO describes a system where it sells products through authorized resellers bound by agreements that limit how its branded goods can be distributed. These agreements prohibit bulk sales or sales to wholesalers like Factory Depot and specify that warranties are only valid when products are sold through authorized channels. The company claims it devotes significant resources to protecting its brand reputation through these controls.
The complaint alleges that since at least January 2, 2026, Factory Depot has been notified it was selling “Infringing Products” online—specifically on Walmart.com under “The Factory Depot” storefront—and using NOCO’s trademarks and copyrighted materials without consent. Despite receiving a demand letter on January 8, 2026, followed by further communication on January 27 requesting confirmation that infringing activities would cease, “Defendant has refused to cease selling Infringing Products and continues to violate Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.” The filing states this continued conduct constitutes willful infringement.
NOCO contends that the products sold by Factory Depot differ materially because they lack warranty protections and may not adhere to quality control standards for storage or handling required for electronic devices containing lithium-ion batteries. The plaintiff also claims Factory Depot uses copyrighted marketing content in advertisements for these goods without permission.
The legal arguments include assertions that unauthorized sales create confusion among consumers regarding whether they are purchasing genuine NOCO products with full benefits such as warranties or customer support. “Defendant’s unauthorized advertisement and sale of Infringing Products is likely to cause confusion…because it suggests Infringing Products come with NOCO’s Warranty…when in fact they are not,” the complaint reads.
As relief from the court, NOCO requests declaratory judgments confirming Defendant’s lack of authorization to sell these goods; monetary damages exceeding $75,000; compensatory damages; enhanced statutory damages; restitution including disgorgement of profits; punitive damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; permanent injunctions prohibiting further sales or use of trademarks; removal of references to NOCO from websites; preservation of records related to sales; attorneys’ fees; costs; expenses; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
Attorneys representing The NOCO Company are Jon J. Pinney, Kyle D. Stroup, and Antonio F. Dempsey from Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP in Cleveland, Ohio. The case is identified as Case No.: 1:26-cv-00918-DAR.
Source: 126cv00918_The_Noco_Company_v_Factory_Depot_Distribution_Center_Complaint_Northern_District_Ohio.pdf
