SoCal Powersports, Inc. v. The Timken Co. - Memorandum of Opinion and Order

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by McQueen

Memorandum of Opinion and Order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, addressing a motion to dismiss in a diversity action. The plaintiff, SoCal Powersports, Inc., alleges defamation, tortious interference, and violations of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act arising from reports submitted to Amazon regarding alleged trademark infringement tied to Ultimax belts. The court grants the motion in part and denies it in part, applying Rule 12(b)(6) standards and recounting Amazon account impacts and the parties’ brand-guideline disputes.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages18

Reading Time6 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Background

Brand guidelines and reporting to Amazon

Amazon’s notice and SoCal’s appeals

Suspension of selling privileges

Standard of Review

Case: 5:24-cv-02085-PAG Doc \#: 26 Filed: 04/28/25 1 of 18. PageID \#: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISON SoCal Powersports, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. The Timken Co., et al., Defendants. )) )) )) )) )) CASE NO. 5:24 CV 2085 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Memorandum of Opinion and Order INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon Defendant The Timken Company’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17), which was joined by defendant Shane Smith. This is a diversity action alleging defamation, tortious interference, and violation of Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. For the reasons that follow, Defendant The Timken Company’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. BACKGROUND For purposes of ruling on the pending motion to dismiss, all well-plead factual allegations in plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) are presumed true. Plaintiff SoCal Powersports, Inc. (“SoCal” or“Plaintiff”) resells products on Amazon, including, relevant here, Ultimax brand power transmission belts. These belts have been sold under different brand names in the past, including by Case: 5:24-cv-02085-PAG Doc \#: 26 Filed: 04/28/25 2 of 18. PageID \#: “Dayco” and “Carlisle.” Most recently, defendant The Timken Company (“Timken”) purchased the brand from Carlisle. Since at least September 30, 2021, Timken has manufactured and marketed the previous Carlisle belts as “Ultimax belts by Timken.” SoCal was an authorized distributor of the belts under Carlisle’s ownership and Timken has confirmed that SoCal continued to be an authorized reseller of Ultimax belts as of April 15, 2024. (Doc. 1-3.) On December 17, 2023, Timken notified SoCal that Timken had updated its brand guidelines to include a new policy that prohibited online sales through third-party websites and anew “Minimum Advertised Price” for those products. The guidelines also advised that “[p]revious brands such as Carlisle or Dayco should NEVER be used in association with the Ultimax brand or product.”(Doc. 1-2, at 2.) The policies announced were retroactively effective as of December 15, 2023, but Timken wrote that it would take the “late notice into consideration to allow [SoCal] an opportunity to update [its] online content.”(Id. at 1.) Before it sent SoCal this notice, however, Timken, through defendant Shane Smith (“Smith”and, together with Timken,“Defendants”), filed at least 267 reports with Amazon alleging that SoCal was selling trademark infringing products. Defendants filed these reports between November 30, 2023, and December 17, 2023. Although the reported listings were for products that SoCal purchased from authorized dealers of Ultimax products, the depicted products included Carlisle’s name on the packaging. Defendants represented in their reports to Amazon that “[a] brand called‘Carlisle’ is using our Ultimax trademark on the packaging[.]”(Doc. 1 ¶ 73.) In response, Amazon notified SoCal that it had received reports of trademark infringement from Defendants. Amazon’s notice informed SoCal that Amazon had removed each reported listing but that it “may let [SoCal] list this content again if [Amazon] receive[s] a retraction from the rights 2 Case: 5:24-cv-02085-PAG Doc \#: 26 Filed: 04/28/25 3 of 18. PageID \#: owner.”(Id. ¶ 70.) The notice also directed SoCal to visit Amazon’s “Account Health page in Seller Central” to appeal the listing deactivation and included a link to that page. Finally, the notice informed SoCal that Amazon may provide SoCal’s contact information to Defendants if Defendants did not “retract their complaint, or [SoCal did] not provide supporting information[.]”(Id.) According to SoCal, when it asked Defendants to retract the complaints through Amazon, they refused.1 SoCal provided Amazon invoice receipts showing authenticity of the Ultimax products but substantially all of the appeals were rejected because, according to SoCal,“Amazon no longer accepted re

FAQs

What claims does SoCal Powersports bring in this case?

SoCal alleges defamation, tortious interference, and violations of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on the defendants’ actions related to trademark reporting to Amazon.

What did the defendants file with Amazon and why?

The defendants filed numerous reports alleging SoCal was selling trademark-infringing products; the reports asserted a brand called “Carlisle” used the Ultimax trademark on packaging.

How did the dispute affect SoCal’s Amazon selling privileges?

SoCal’s Account Health Rating dropped, leading Amazon to suspend all of SoCal’s selling privileges from February 2024 until August 2024, with Ultimax listings remaining deactivated.

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by McQueen