4851-1769-4755. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

INTERSTATE RESTORATION GROUP, INC., a 

Texas corporation, and INTERSTATE 

RESTORATION LLC, a Colorado limited liability 

company, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

INTERSTATE RESTORATION INC., a Michigan 

corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 

Hon. 

Vanessa L. Miller (P67794) 

Margaret L. Mettler (P77026) 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Telephone: 313.234.7100 

Fax: 313.234.2800 

Email: vmiller@foley.com

mmettler@foley.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Interstate Restoration 

Group, Inc. and Interstate Restoration LLC 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs Interstate Restoration Group, Inc. and Interstate Restoration 

LLC (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “Interstate”), by and through their 

counsel Foley & Lardner LLP, hereby file this Complaint against Defendant 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 1
2 

Interstate Restoration Inc. (“Defendant” or “Interstate Dearborn”), and in support 

thereof state as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is an action for damages and injunctive and other relief, asserting 

various statutory and common law claims against Defendant, including trademark 

infringement, unfair competition, and other related claims. Defendant, without 

authorization or consent, willfully adopted, and is now using, names and 

trademarks that are identical or highly similar to Plaintiffs’ names and trademarks 

on and in connection with services of the same type as those offered by Plaintiffs. 

PARTIES 

2. Plaintiff Interstate Restoration Group, Inc. is a Texas corporation with 

its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. 

3. Plaintiff Interstate Restoration LLC is a Colorado limited liability 

company with its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. Plaintiff 

Interstate Restoration LLC operates in Michigan under the assumed name 

Interstate Restoration Michigan, LLC. 

4. On information and belief, Defendant Interstate Restoration Inc. 

(hereinafter, “Interstate Dearborn”) is a Michigan corporation with its principal 

place of business in Dearborn, Michigan. 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 2 of 15 Pg ID 2
3 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

5. This is an action for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1114(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and common law; use of false designations of 

origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection 

Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903; and infringement and unfair competition under 

Michigan common law. 

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and (b), and supplemental 

jurisdiction over the claims arising under the statutory and common law of the 

State of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state law claims are 

so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. 

7. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over 

Defendant under Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.711 and 600.715 because Defendant is 

domiciled in the State of Michigan and/or conducts substantial business in this 

forum and because this action arises, in whole or in part, from Defendant’s 

transaction of business within the State of Michigan and its commission of tortious 

acts within the State of Michigan. Plaintiffs have been harmed and continue to 

suffer harm in the State of Michigan. 

8. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and (c). On 

information and belief, Defendant regularly transacts, and/or has transacted, business 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 3 of 15 Pg ID 3
4 

in this District, including by offering services to customers in this District and/or a 

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 

The Interstate Plaintiffs 

9. For more than 16 years, Interstate has been providing restoration, 

emergency response, emergency recovery, general contracting, construction, and 

related services to businesses and individuals suffering property damage due to 

fires, floods, and other natural and man-made disasters. 

10. Since 1998, Interstate has marketed and sold restoration, emergency 

response, emergency recovery, general contracting, construction, and related 

services to customers in the United States, including, since 2002, to customers in 

Michigan. During this time, Interstate has used the name and mark INTERSTATE 

and various INTERSTATE-formative names and marks to identify its services and 

to distinguish them from services others offer by, among other things, prominently 

displaying its names and marks on promotional materials, advertising, websites, 

and other media. This includes, inter alia, use of the following trade names and 

marks: INTERSTATE, INTERSTATE RESTORATION, INTERSTATE 

RESTORATION GROUP, and INTERSTATE RESTORATION GROUP & 

Design. Interstate also owns an incontestable federal trademark registration for 

INTERSTATE RESTORATION GROUP (Reg. No. 3533040) covering, inter alia, 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 4 of 15 Pg ID 4
5 

restoration services, emergency response services, reconstruction, and general 

contracting. See Exhibit A. Collectively, all of Interstate’s foregoing names and 

marks are hereinafter referred to as the “Interstate Marks.” 

11. Interstate operates 18 offices strategically located in 12 different states 

– Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, 

North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington – allowing it to respond to an 

incident anywhere in the country. Interstate currently has two offices in Michigan: 

one in Southfield and one in Grand Rapids. 

12. Since it was established in 1998, Interstate has served thousands of 

clients in a wide range of industries – including banks and financial institutions, 

commercial and corporate clients, government and public sector entities, healthcare 

organizations, hotels and resorts, industrial and manufacturing clients, multifamily 

housing facilities, religious institutions, restaurants, retail outfits, and schools and 

universities – as well as homeowners. Interstate’s clients include Fortune 500 

companies as well as the U.S. Postal Service. 

13. Interstate actively advertises and promotes the Interstate Marks 

through its website <http://www.interstaterestoration.com/> (“Interstate Website”); 

its blog <http://www.interstaterestoration.com/blog> (“Interstate Blog”); and 

various social media platforms where it has a significant presence, such as 

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube. 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 5 of 15 Pg ID 5
6 

14. Interstate’s services have been publicized in leading business media 

articles, and since Interstate first began using the Interstate Marks in 1998, it has 

spent significant sums promoting its restoration, emergency response, emergency 

recovery, general contracting, construction, and related services. Over the course 

of the past 16-plus years, Interstate has expended in excess of $10 million to 

advertise and promote the Interstate Marks. 

15. Since its inception, Interstate has sold over $800 million in 

restoration, emergency response, emergency recovery, general contracting, 

construction, and related services. Last year, Interstate’s revenue exceeded $100 

million, including business conducted in Michigan. 

16. Due to Interstate’s long and continuous use of the Interstate Marks in 

connection with the provision of restoration, emergency response, emergency 

recovery, general contracting, construction, and related services throughout the 

United States, the Interstate Marks have come to indicate to consumers of those 

services that Interstate is the source of those services. 

17. As a result of Interstate’s extensive use of, and sales under, the 

Interstate Marks, the Interstate Marks represent highly valuable goodwill owned by 

Interstate. 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 6 of 15 Pg ID 6
7 

Defendant Interstate Dearborn 

18. Upon Information and belief, in or about September 2007, Defendant 

began operating as Interstate Restoration Inc. in Michigan (hereinafter, Defendant 

referred to as “Interstate Dearborn”). Upon Information and belief, Interstate 

Dearborn – like Interstate – provides restoration, emergency, and related services. 

19. Upon information and belief, Interstate Dearborn has used and/or 

currently uses, inter alia, the following INTERSTATE and INTERSTATEformative names and marks to advertise and promote the same types of services as 

those Interstate offers by displaying them on promotional materials, on websites, 

and in other advertising in the United States: INTERSTATE; INTERSTATE 

RESTORATION; and INTERSTATE RESTORATION, INC. 

20. Like Interstate, Interstate Dearborn advertises and promotes its 

services using social media sites, such as Facebook. 

21. Upon information and belief, Interstate Dearborn has registered the 

domain <www.interstaterest.com>. 

22. The services offered by Interstate Dearborn under the name and mark 

INTERSTATE RESTORATION and other INTERSTATE-formative names and 

marks are the same types of services offered by Interstate under the Interstate 

Marks. 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 7 of 15 Pg ID 7
8 

23. Interstate Dearborn’s services target the same consumers as 

Interstate’s services. 

24. Interstate Dearborn’s marketing, promotion, and offering of the same 

types of services as those offered by Interstate using INTERSTATE-formative 

names and marks has caused, and is likely to continue causing, confusion, mistake, 

or deception as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of Interstate Dearborn’s 

services. As a result of Interstate Dearborn’s unauthorized use of INTERSTATEformative names and marks, which are confusingly similar to the Interstate Marks, 

consumers are likely to believe, erroneously, that Interstate Dearborn’s services 

have been endorsed by, approved by, sponsored by, or affiliated with Interstate. 

Such confusion is likely to damage Interstate in a variety of ways, including the 

loss of its ability to control the nature, quality, and consumer perception of its 

services and the goodwill and reputation associated with the Interstate Marks. 

25. On information and belief, Interstate Dearborn had actual knowledge 

of Interstate’s name and trademark rights prior to adopting its INTERSTATEformative names and marks and acted knowingly and willingly in adopting 

confusingly similar names and marks for identical, related, and/or complementary 

services. 

26. Interstate Dearborn’s unauthorized adoption and use of 

INTERSTATE-formative names and marks gives Interstate Dearborn’s services a 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 8 of 15 Pg ID 8
9 

salability they would not otherwise have had by allowing Interstate Dearborn to 

receive the benefit of the goodwill, commercial magnetism, and reputation 

established at great labor and expense, and cultivated over many years, by 

Interstate in the Interstate Marks and the services to which they refer. 

27. Interstate Dearborn’s use of INTERSTATE-formative names and 

marks has been without Interstate’s authorization or consent. 

28. Upon information and belief, Interstate Dearborn’s acts complained of 

herein have been willful, and intended to trade upon the reputation of Interstate and 

its services offered under the Interstate Marks and thereby cause harm to Interstate. 

29. Interstate Dearborn’s aforementioned conduct has caused, and will 

continue to cause, inter alia, immediate and irreparable injury to Interstate and to 

its goodwill, reputation, and ability to provide restoration, emergency response, 

emergency recovery, general contracting, construction, and related services under 

the Interstate Marks, and will continue both to damage Interstate and deceive the 

public unless enjoined by this Court. Interstate has no adequate remedy at law. 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 9 of 15 Pg ID 9
10 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 

(15 U.S.C. § 1114) 

30. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the 

preceding paragraphs in this Complaint, and incorporate them herein by reference. 

31. The acts of Defendant complained of herein constitute trademark 

infringement in violation of § 32(1) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended 

(15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)). 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT & UNFAIR COMPETITION 

(15 U.S.C. § 1125) 

32. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the 

preceding paragraphs in this Complaint, and incorporate them herein by reference. 

33. By the acts complained of herein, Defendant has infringed Plaintiffs’ 

rights in the Interstate Marks, has unfairly competed with Plaintiffs, and has falsely 

designated the origin of Defendant’s services, causing irreparable injury to 

Plaintiffs in violation of § 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended 

(15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 10 of 15 Pg ID 10
11 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 

34. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the 

preceding paragraphs in this Complaint, and incorporate them herein by reference. 

35. The acts of Defendant complained of herein constitute common law 

trademark infringement of Plaintiffs’ trademark rights and unfair competition. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 

36. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the 

preceding paragraphs in this Complaint, and incorporate them herein by reference. 

37. The State of Michigan has an important interest in ensuring that 

persons and entities doing business with Michigan residents fully comply with 

Michigan laws. 

38. The aforesaid acts of Defendant constitute unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in 

violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. Mich. Comp. Laws 

§ 445.903(1)(a)-(c), (e). 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 11 of 15 Pg ID 11
12 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court: 

A. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction, restraining Defendant and 

each of its directors, officers, partners, distributors, agents, servants, 

employees, and attorneys, and all those in active concert or participation 

with Defendant, from: 

1. using, in connection with the advertising, marketing, sale, or 

promotion of restoration, emergency response, emergency 

recovery, general contracting, construction, or related services, 

any name or mark consisting in whole, or in part, of the term 

“Interstate” (whether in word or logo form) or any other name 

or mark likely to cause confusion with any of Plaintiffs’ 

Interstate Marks; 

2. using any false designation of origin or false description, or 

performing any act that is likely to lead members of the trade or 

public to believe that any of Defendant’s services are licensed, 

sponsored, approved, or authorized by either of Plaintiffs, or are 

in any other manner associated or connected with Plaintiffs; 

3. doing any act or thing likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive 

others into believing that Defendant, or any of its products or 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 12 of 15 Pg ID 12
13 

services, emanate from either of Plaintiffs or are connected 

with, affiliated with, sponsored by, associated with, or approved 

or authorized by either of Plaintiffs; and 

4. engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition 

with either of Plaintiffs, or infringement of any of Plaintiffs’ 

Interstate Marks. 

B. Order all advertising, promotional materials, displays, domain names, 

social media handles, and any other materials in tangible or electronic 

form that Defendant or any of its agents possess bearing INTERSTATEformative names or marks or any colorable imitation thereof, which are 

in the possession and control of Defendant or any of its agents, to be 

delivered up to Plaintiffs for destruction. 

C. Order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs: 

1. treble Defendant’s profits from sales of services under an 

INTERSTATE-formative name or mark; 

2. treble Plaintiffs’ actual damages arising out of Defendant’s acts 

of infringement and unfair competition; and 

3. Plaintiffs’ costs in this civil action, including reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and expenses, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117. 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 13 of 15 Pg ID 13
14 

D. Order Defendant to take such other action as the Court deems appropriate 

to prevent the trade and public from mistakenly believing that any 

services offered, advertised, or promoted by or on behalf of Defendant 

are authorized by Plaintiffs or are related in any way to Plaintiffs’ 

services. 

E. Order Defendant to file with the Court and serve upon Plaintiffs’ counsel 

within thirty (30) days after entry of judgment a report in writing under 

oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendant has 

complied with the above pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). 

F. Grant to Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just 

and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request a 

trial by jury of any issues so triable by right. 

 

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 14 of 15 Pg ID 14
15 

Dated: May 8, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: /s/ Vanessa L. Miller 

Vanessa L. Miller (P67794) 

Margaret L. Mettler (P77026) 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Telephone: 313.234.7100 

Fax: 313.234.2800 

Email: vmiller@foley.com 

mmettler@foley.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Interstate 

Restoration Group, Inc. and Interstate 

Restoration LLC

2:15-cv-11654-PDB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 15 of 15 Pg ID 15