Trademark Infringement AttorneyDrafting Lanham Act §1114 and §1125(a) Demands

Sample only. Names, dates, registration numbers, dollar figures, and the law firm shown above are illustrative. The legal substance, statutory citations, case authority, evidentiary structure, remedy framework, and time-limited acceptance mechanics shown here reflect how a competent intellectual property attorney drafts a real trademark infringement cease and desist letter against a counterfeit reseller.

April 28, 2026

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

AND ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

(legal@northridge-supply.example)

Mr. Anton K. Vasquez, Registered Agent

Northridge Supply Co., LLC

14882 Lassen Street, Suite 210

Northridge, CA 91326

Dear Mr. Vasquez:

This firm represents Kestrel Carry Goods, Inc. (“Kestrel” or our “Client”) in connection with its registered trademark portfolio. We write regarding Northridge Supply Co., LLC’s unauthorized use of the registered mark KESTREL VAULT® on titanium wallet products advertised, offered for sale, and sold through your direct-to-consumer website and through your Shopify storefront. Your conduct constitutes federal trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); false designation of origin and unfair competition under Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and, given the indistinguishability of your packaging from our Client’s, trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) and § 1117(b)-(c).

We demand that you cease and desist from each of the acts identified below, that you deliver up the remaining infringing inventory for destruction, and that you remit a full accounting of revenue derived from the infringing sales, on or before 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on May 12, 2026. The deadline is set in good faith. It is sufficient for a commercial reseller to remove listings, halt shipments, and begin a sell-through accounting. Failure to comply on these terms will result in the filing of a verified complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking, among other relief, statutory damages of up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2), trebled actual damages and disgorgement of your profits under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b), attorney’s fees, and a preliminary injunction with an ex parte seizure order under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d).

I. Our Client’s Rights in the KESTREL VAULT® Mark

Kestrel Carry Goods, Inc. is the senior user and registrant of the federally registered trademark KESTREL VAULT for “wallets of metal; cardholders of metal; titanium wallets” in International Class 14. The mark issued on the Principal Register on August 17, 2021 under U.S. Registration No. 6,418,209 (Exhibit A, certificate of registration). The registration is now incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065 by virtue of our Client’s timely-filed Section 8 affidavit of continuous use and Section 15 affidavit of incontestability, accepted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 4, 2026 (Exhibit B). Incontestable status is conclusive evidence of the validity of the registration, of our Client’s ownership of the mark, and of our Client’s exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in connection with the goods specified in the registration. 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b).

Our Client first used the KESTREL VAULT mark in commerce on March 3, 2019, and has used the mark continuously since that date in connection with the sale of titanium cardholder wallets through its direct-to-consumer website at kestrelvault.example and through authorized retail partners (Exhibit C, sales records and authorized reseller list). Cumulative U.S. sales under the mark exceed thirty-eight million dollars. Our Client has further invested in excess of four million dollars in advertising and brand development under the mark, including features in GQ, Wired, and Carryology (Exhibit D, advertising and unsolicited press). The KESTREL VAULT mark is strong, distinctive, and entitled to broad protection.

II. The Infringing Conduct

Beginning no later than February 6, 2026, Northridge Supply Co. began advertising and selling a titanium cardholder product under the literal mark “Kestrel Vault™” through your e-commerce site at northridge-supply.example and through your Shopify storefront @northridge-edc. Test purchases made by this firm on March 9 and April 14, 2026 (Exhibits E-1 and E-2, order confirmations, shipping cartons, and product photography) confirm that the product:

• is shipped in packaging that uses the identical “Kestrel Vault” word mark, the identical falcon-silhouette design, and the identical brushed-titanium color treatment as our Client’s authentic packaging;
• bears a serial number on the carton that does not correspond to any number issued by our Client’s manufacturing partner;
• is sold at $79 against an authentic retail price of $128, a price differential that no honest reseller of authentic goods could sustain on a 28% wholesale margin;
• arrives with a quick-start card that copies, verbatim, the typesetting and trademark notices of our Client’s authentic insert.

Our Client has at no time licensed, authorized, or otherwise consented to your use of the KESTREL VAULT mark. You are not, and have never been, on our Client’s authorized reseller list. The use is unauthorized, willful, and squarely within the statutory definition of a counterfeit mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1127 and the definition of trafficking in counterfeit goods under 18 U.S.C. § 2320(f)(1).

III. Likelihood of Confusion Analysis (Sleekcraft Factors)

The Ninth Circuit, which controls this dispute, evaluates likelihood of confusion under the eight-factor framework of AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979). Each factor weighs decisively in favor of our Client.

Where the marks are identical and the goods are identical, the Ninth Circuit treats likelihood of confusion as a matter that does not require extensive evidence to establish. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1056. Your conduct is not a close case.

IV. No Defense is Available on These Facts

We have considered, and rule out, each defense potentially available to a reseller in your position:

Nominative fair use requires that the use be no more than necessary to identify the genuine product and that nothing in the overall presentation suggest sponsorship or endorsement. New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 308 (9th Cir. 1992). Your packaging copies our Client’s falcon design, color treatment, and insert copy. The use is well past what nominative fair use permits.

First sale protects unaltered resale of genuine goods sourced from the trademark owner. Sebastian Int’l, Inc. v. Longs Drug Stores Corp., 53 F.3d 1073, 1074 (9th Cir. 1995). The product you ship is not genuine. The serial numbers do not match our Client’s manufacturing records (Exhibit H), and metallurgical testing of the test purchases shows a 6Al-4V titanium grade variance that authentic units do not exhibit (Exhibit I, lab report).

Materially different goods defeats first sale where applicable. Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD Int’l Corp., 263 F.3d 1297, 1302 (11th Cir. 2001). The product you ship is not authentic; this defense is unavailable on these facts and would not aid you if it were.

V. Statutory Remedies and Exposure

Because the conduct involves use of a counterfeit mark, our Client may elect, at any time before final judgment, between actual damages and statutory damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). The applicable statutory range is:

• $1,000 to $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods sold for non-willful conduct, and
• up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods sold for willful conduct, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2).

Willfulness is established here by your verbatim copying of the falcon design and insert copy, by the price gap from authentic, and by your continued sale after receipt of this letter.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b), where a counterfeit mark is used and the conduct is willful, the court shall enter judgment for three times the profits or damages, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney’s fees, absent extenuating circumstances. The treble-damages mandate is one of the very few mandatory fee-shifting rules in federal commercial litigation and is the principal reason counterfeit cases settle.

Federal injunctive relief is governed by the four-factor test of eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006), restated for trademark cases by Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1249 (9th Cir. 2013). On these facts, our Client can establish each factor: irreparable injury to brand goodwill that money cannot remedy, inadequate remedy at law, balance of hardships favoring the senior user, and a public interest in not being deceived as to source. We will move for a preliminary injunction concurrently with the complaint.

Where the conduct rises to counterfeiting, the Lanham Act further authorizes ex parte seizure of the infringing goods, packaging, business records, and computer files under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d). Our Client has not waived that remedy and will seek it if the response to this letter requires it.

VI. Specific Demands and Compliance Deadline

On or before 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, May 12, 2026, Northridge Supply Co., LLC and each of its officers, members, agents, and contractors shall:

1. Permanently remove the listing at northridge-supply.example/products/kestrel-vault-titanium and any successor or mirrored listing on any platform you control, including but not limited to your Shopify storefront, Amazon seller account, eBay listings, TikTok Shop, and Meta or Google Shopping placements.
2. Cease all use of the marks KESTREL VAULT, KESTREL, the falcon design, and any colorable imitation of either, in any advertising, packaging, metadata, alt-text, search advertising keywords, or product copy.
3. Quarantine and deliver up all remaining infringing inventory in your possession, custody, or control to our Client’s designated logistics provider for destruction, at our Client’s expense.
4. Deliver to this firm a sworn accounting, signed under penalty of perjury under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, of (i) total units sold under the mark, (ii) gross revenue, (iii) cost of goods sold, (iv) names and contact information for every supplier and downstream purchaser, and (v) total marketing spend on the infringing listings.
5. Identify the source of the counterfeit goods, including manufacturer name and address, broker contacts, customs entry numbers if any, and any related importation documents in your possession.
6. Send a corrective email in a form pre-approved by this firm to every consumer who purchased the infringing product, disclosing that the goods were not authentic Kestrel Carry Goods product and offering a full refund.
7. Execute and deliver the form Settlement and Permanent Injunction Agreement enclosed with this letter as Exhibit J.

VII. Litigation Hold and Spoliation Notice

Northridge Supply Co., LLC, its officers, members, agents, and contractors are hereby placed on notice of a pending dispute and are required to preserve, and to instruct each custodian to preserve, all documents and electronically stored information relating to the infringing conduct, including but not limited to: source records and supplier communications; sales, fulfillment, and refund records; Shopify admin logs; advertising account records on Meta, Google, and TikTok; emails, messages, and chats discussing the “Kestrel Vault” product line; accounting records; and the inventory itself.

Spoliation, including auto-deletion under any retention setting, will be the subject of an adverse-inference instruction at trial under Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 888 F. Supp. 2d 976, 998 (N.D. Cal. 2012), and may form an independent basis for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e).

VIII. Reservation of Rights

Nothing in this letter waives or limits any right, claim, defense, or remedy available to Kestrel Carry Goods, Inc. at law or in equity. Our Client expressly reserves all rights, including the right to seek injunctive relief without further notice if the conduct continues, the right to elect statutory damages at any time before final judgment, the right to seek attorney’s fees and costs, the right to refer the matter to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for recordation and border-enforcement purposes under 19 C.F.R. Part 133, and the right to refer the matter to the United States Attorney for the Central District of California for criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2320.

IX. Exhibits Indexed to This Letter

• Exhibit A — USPTO Certificate of Registration No. 6,418,209 (KESTREL VAULT)
• Exhibit B — USPTO acceptance of Sections 8 and 15 affidavits
• Exhibit C — Sales records and authorized reseller list
• Exhibit D — Advertising spend records and unsolicited press
• Exhibit E — Test purchase confirmations, packaging, and product photography (E-1, E-2)
• Exhibit F — Misdirected warranty inquiry log
• Exhibit G — Comparative Meta and Google ad-placement audit
• Exhibit H — Manufacturing partner serial-number reconciliation
• Exhibit I — Independent metallurgical testing report
• Exhibit J — Form Settlement and Permanent Injunction Agreement

Please direct your written response, and any settlement counterproposal, to the undersigned at the address above or by email to sreyes@reyes-ip.example. We are willing to discuss compliance terms with you or with retained counsel before the deadline. We are not willing to extend the deadline absent a confirmed and creditable proposal in writing.

Govern yourself accordingly.

Very truly yours,

Reyes Intellectual Property Law, P.C.

By: ____________________________

Sofia A. Reyes, Esq.

CA Bar #294187 · NV Bar #14082

cc: Kestrel Carry Goods, Inc. (client); Shopify Trust & Safety (dmca@shopify.example, IPR escalation queue)

Enclosures: Exhibits A through J (indexed)

Sample only. Names, dates, registration numbers, dollar figures, and the law firm shown above are illustrative. The legal substance, statutory citations, case authority, evidentiary structure, remedy framework, and time-limited compliance mechanics shown here reflect how a competent intellectual property attorney drafts a real trademark infringement cease and desist letter against a counterfeit reseller.