Mobile Environmental Solutions, LLC v. All-Star Inflatables Incorporated et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MOBILE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, §
LLC, 	§
Plaintiff,
VS.
ALL-ST AR INFLATABLES
IN CORPORA TED AND REVILO
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-04929
ORDER
Pending before this Court is Defendants All-Star Inflatables Incorporated d/b/a Best
American Booths and Revilo Industries, Inc.' s (collectively, "All-Star") Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 23). Plaintiff Mobile Environmental
Solutions, LLC ("MES") filed a response in opposition, (Doc. No. 26), and All-Star filed a reply
brief (Doc. No. 28). Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and relevant legal standards, the
Court hereby DENIES Defendant All-Star' s Rule 12(6)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 23).
I. 	Factual Background
This is a dispute over the use of a mobile inflatable paint booth design. The following
allegations are drawn from the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 19). For over a decade, MES
"has been in the business of developing, marketing, and distributing mobile inflatable paint booths,
bedliner booths, clean rooms, and hail damage estimating tunnels." (Id. at 3) . These mobile booths
are primarily used for "on-site spray-on bedliner services" and for "automobile painting and
restoration, windshield replacement, windshield chip repair, interior repair, inventory photographs,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04929 Document 31 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 11

and window tinting." (Id.). While MES mobile booths come in different shapes and sizes for
different uses, MES provided these photos as examples of its mobile booths:
(Id. at 16).
MES alleges that these inflatable booths are "not simple [] inflatable enclosures," and that
it "spent years researching, developing and refining its inflatable portable booth design and
specifications, including addressing airflow and ventilation issues." (Id. at 6). MES also alleges
that it "expended considerable resources designing and developing its products [in order] to
comply with all applicable government and industry regulations, including stringent OSHA, EPA,
and NFP A standards and regulations" to "eliminat[ e] or reduc[ e] toxic fumes from the working
environment." (Id.). Additionally, MES alleges that it "was able to design and provide a portable
eco-friendly booth that removes contaminant and preserve the environment, enabling compliance
with applicable safety and environmental regulations." (Id.).
In 2013 , MES connected with Paul Oliver, the owner of All-Star, at an inflatables trade
show in Austin, Texas. (Id. at 4). At the time, All-Star "manufactured and sold inflatable arches
for athletic and sporting events," and after a series of discussions, MES decided to "switch
manufacturers and enter into a manufacturing agreement" with All-Star. (Id.). MES and All-Star
agreed that "All-Star would manufacture inflatable booths for use in the automotive field solely
for [MES], and [MES] would purchase inflatable booths for use in the automotive field solely from
2
Case 4:24-cv-04929 Document 31 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 11

All-Start for the term of the Agreement." (Id. at 5) ; see also (Doc. No. 19-1) (Purchase Agreement).
The Agreement also provided that All-State would have a "non-exclusive, non-royalty bearing
license" to use ME S's confidential information and intellectual property, including information
like "cost expenditures, revenue, profits, customer contacts, type and quality of products ordered,
customer specification and requests, potential customers, future business relationships, business
plans and marketing strategies," to manufacture the MES booths. (Doc. No. 19 at 5- 6).
Acc_ording to MES, sales for the inflatable booths "took off in 2017," and its "customer
base expanded to include body shops purchasing [the booths] for overflow issues and custom car
shops for high-end painting and finishing projects." (Id. at 7). After the COVID-19 pandemic,
MES began retailing the booths to other field, and the Parties amended to Purchasing Agreement
" to expand the scope of exclusivity to include the 'Automotive Field,' as well as the ' fields of
[A]erospace, Construction, Photography, [and] Medical. "' (Id. 	at 8) . The Amendment also
removed the requirement that MES "would only purchase [booths] from All-Star," allowing MES
to utilize in-house manufacturing or another manufacturer to keep up with the demand. (Id.).
After significant problems with All-Star's manufacturing services, which resulted m
multiple problems, including the alleged loss of a major contract with a military distributor, MES
terminated the Agreement in late 2022. (Id.). Shortly thereafter, All-Star allegedly established a
competing company called "Best American Booths" that began "manufacturing, marketing,
distributing, and selling portable inflatable booths, including mobile inflatable booths." (Id. at 9).
Best American Booths represents that it is the "leading provider of state-of-the-art inflatable
portable paint booth solutions" and claims that it has "established itself as a trusted name in the
mobile automotive and industrial finishing industry." (Id.).
3
Case 4:24-cv-04929 Document 31 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 11

In February 2024, All-Star exhibited the inflatable booths at the Mobile Tech Exposition,
the largest international trade show and conference for mobile automobile technicians in the world.
(Id.). MES was also presented and exhibited its products at that show. All-Star and MES were
apparently right across the aisle from one another at the trade show, allegedly causing confusion
for potential customers because the "products were virtually identical." (Id. at 9- 11 ). At the
Exposition, All-Star distributed a marketing brochure for Best American Booths that apparently
included photographs of MES 's inflatable booth s. (Id. at 11 - 12) . MES later discovered that Best
American Booths was also circulating the photos of MES ' s products on its website, social media
profiles, and through emails to potential client s. (Id. at 11 - 16). MES provided the following
photographs to show the comparison between the alleged products:
PLAI. TFFMES'S PRODUCTS 	DEFENDANTS' PRODUCTS
(Id. at 20).
4
Case 4:24-cv-04929 Document 31 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 11

On December 16, 2024, MES filed this lawsuit against All-Star for breach of contract,
promissory estoppel, unfair competition and false designation of origin, false advertising, federal
trade dress infringement, common law trade dress infringement, trade dress dilution, common law
unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act,
misappropriation 	of 	trade 	secrets 	under 	the 	Defend 	Trade 	Secrets 	Act, 	common 	law
misappropriation, unjust enrichment, defamation, and business disparagement. See generally (id.).
All-Star requests this Court to dismiss the (1) unfair competition and false designation of origin,
(2) federal trade dress infringement, (3) common law trade dress infringement, and ( 4) trade dress
dilution claims for the failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
(Doc. No. 23). The Court addresses the disputed claims below.
II. 	Legal Standards
This Court applies the well-accepted standard in evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. A
defendant may file a motion to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). To defeat a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a
plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell At!.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement ,' but it asks
for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts
in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Sonnier v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 509 F.3d 673 , 675 (5th Cir. 2007). The Court is not bound to accept
5
Case 4:24-cv-04929 Document 31 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 11

factual assumptions or legal conclusions as true, and only a complaint that states a plausible claim
for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678- 79.
III. 	Analysis
All-Star argues that MES has failed to state a claim for (1) unfair competition and false
de signation of origin, (2) 	federal 	trade 	dress 	infringement, (3) 	common law trade 	dress
infringement, and (4) trade dress dilution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The
Court addresses the sufficiency of the factual allegations for each of the claims below and deni es
the Motion to Dismiss.
A. Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin
MES alleges that All-Star violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq., by making
certain false and misleading representations on their website, social media pages, and marketing
materials and failing to correct those misrepresentations. All-Star argues that MES has failed to
allege sufficient facts to establish likelihood of confusion. To prevail on this Lanham Act claim,
MES must plead sufficient facts to establish that (1) it possesses a legally protectable trademark
and (2) All-Star's use of this trademark "creates a likelihood of confusion as to source, affiliation,
or sponsorship." Streamline Production Sys. , Inc. v. Streamline Mfg. , Inc., 851 F.3d 440, 450 (5th
Cir. 2017). To assess likelihood of confusion, courts look to: (1) the type of mark allegedly
infringed, (2) the similarity between the two marks, (3) the similarly of the products or services,
(4) the identity of the retail outlets and purchasers, (5) the identity of the advertising media used,
(6) the defendant's intent, (7) any evidence of actual confusion, and (8) the degree of care exercised
by potential purchasers. Id. at 453 (relying on Bd. of Supervisors v. Smack Apparel Co., 550 F.3d
465 , 478 (5th Cir. 2008)). Nevertheless, "[n]o single factor is dispositive, and a finding of a
6
Case 4:24-cv-04929 Document 31 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 11

likelihood of confusion need not be supported by a majority of the factors." Id. (quoting Smack
Apparel, 550 F.3d at 478).
All-State contends that the First Amended Complaint lacks specific allegations regarding
the Streamline factors, "including critical factors such as mark strength, purchaser sophistication,
and action confusion be yond isolated anecdotal incidents," and fails to state a plausible claim under
the Lanham Act. (Doc. No. 23 at 6). As the Fifth Circuit has recognized, however, "[n]o sing le
factor is dispositive," id., and there is certainly no requirement to provide specific factual
allegations for each and every one of the Streamline factors at the pleading stage. See Chanel Inc.
v. Christian Salvatore NY Corp., No. 3:22-CV-2218, 2023 WL 8242743 , at *8-9 (N.D. Tex. Nov.
3, 2023), adopted by, 2023 WL 8244044 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2023) (recognizing that there is no
requirement to plead factual allegations to support each of the Streamline factors).
The Court finds that the factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint sufficiently set
out that All-Star's use of MES' s trademark on the appearance and design of the inflatable booths
creates the likelihood of confusion as to source, affiliation, or sponsorship. MES alleges that All-
Star intentionally copied the design and appearance of the inflatable mobile booths. See (Doc. No.
19 at 18). Not only did MES provide alleged side-by-side photographs of the booths, see (id.) , but
M ES also alleges that All-Star was intentionally using photos on its website, social media
accounts, emails, and physical marketing material of MES booths to pass as their own products in
the exact same marketplace with the same potential clients. See, e.g., (id. at 13). MES further
alleges that multiple customers expressed actual confusion between the All-Star booths and the
MES booths. See (id. at 11 ). The Court finds that these factual allegations, without engaging in a
line-item analysis of the Streamline factors, state a plausible claim that All-Star's use of the
trademark creates a likelihood of confusion. The Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Count III.
7
Case 4:24-cv-04929 Document 31 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 11

B. 	Federal Trade Dress Infringement and Common Law Trade Dress Infringement
MES alleges that All-Star's "advertisements, promotions, offers to sell, sales, and/or
distribution of infringing products ... constitute infringement of [MES]'s trade dress" under the
Lanham Act and common law trade dress infringement. "To establish trade-dress infringement
under§ 43(a) of the Lanham Act for an unregistered mark, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that
its trade dress is either inherently distinctive or that it has acquired distinctiveness through
secondary meaning." Worth Beauty LLC v. Allstar Products Group, LLC , No. 4:17-CV-1682, 2017
WL 5300007, at *2 (S.D . Tex. Nov. 13 , 2017). Nevertheless, "trade dress protection may not be
claimed for product features that are functional. " TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc. , 532
U.S. 23 , 29 (2001). "A product feature is functional and cannot serve as a trademark, if it is
essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of an article."
EppendorfNetheler-Hinz GMBH v. Ritter GMBH, 289 F.3d 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting
TrafFix , 532 U.S . at 32)). All-Star contends that the First Amended Complaint does not include
sufficient factual allegations to establish that the alleged trade dress is "non-functional."
The First Amended Complaint repeatedly alleges that the alleged trade dress of the
inflatable booths "includes famous and/or well-known, unique, distinctive, and non-functional
color schemes and patterns." See, e.g. , (Doc. No. 19 at 32). MES alleges that "[t]he individual
features and elements of [the] inflatable paint booths and the look, appearance, and image of the
product, including the white and gray color scheme, identify the inflatable paint booth as [MES]
products." (Id. at 15 - 16). While All-Star contends that the alleged features of the trade dress must
be "functional" because the MES designed the paint booths to comply with various federal and
state regulations, (id. at 6) , MES has clearly pleaded that the alleged trade dress relates to the non-
functional elements of the paint booth such as unique and distinctive color schemes and
8
Case 4:24-cv-04929 Document 31 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 11

patterns- 	not the actual design of the paint booths that may implicate those workplace regulations.
(Id. at 32). While there may later be evidence in the case that supports All-Star's proposition,
"these are exactly the types of factual arguments that are not properly resolved on a motion to
dismiss" because "at this incipient stage of the litigation, there is no basis for the Court to
definitively conclude, as a matter of law, those trade dress features are indisputable functional. "
Worth Beauty, 2017 WL 5300007, at *5.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the First Amended Complaint provides fair notice of the
trade dress elements at issue in this lawsuit and adequately allege that those elements are "non-
functional." The Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Counts V and VI.
C. Trade Dress Dilution
MES alleges that All-Star 's "advertisements, promotions, offers to sell, sales, and/or
distribution of the infringing products, in direct competition with [MES] constitute" trade dress
dilution under Texas Business & Commerce Code§ 16.03. Under§ 16.03(a), "the owner of a mark
that is famous and distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, in this state is entitled
to enjoin another person 's commercial use of a mark or trade name that begins after the mark has
become famous if use of the mark or trade name is likely to cause the dilution of the famous mark."
Id. Under Texas law, "a mark is considered to be famous if the mark is widely recognized by the
public throughout this state or in a geographic area in this state as a designation of source of the
goods or services of the mark's owner." Id. § 16.03(6). To determine whether a mark qualifies,
courts consider factors such as "the duration, extent and geographic reach of the advertisement and
publicity of the mark in this state," "the amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods
or serv ic es offered under the mark in this state," "the extent of actual recognition of the mark in
this state," and "whether the mark is registered in this state." Id. § 16 .03(6)(1)- (4).
9
Case 4:24-cv-04929 Document 31 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 11

All-Star contends that the MES has failed to sufficiently allege that the trade dress is
"famous" under the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The Court disagrees. The First Amended
Complaint extensively alleges that MES "has been selling its inflatable paint booths with its
distinctive trade dress in Texas and in interstate commerce since 2013 ," expending "significant
resources advertising and marketing its inflatable booth products under the MES brand through its
website, various tradeshows, televisions shows, social media platforms, and print media." (Doc.
No. 19 at 17). MES alleges that these "extensive advertising and marketing efforts and Texas and
the United States have included developing a custom website featuring 	[MES]'s inflatable
enclosures or booths; posting on MES social media accounts including Facebook, Instagram,
YouTube, X, and Linkedln; advertising in a variety of med[i]a including print, television, internet,
and race car sponsorships; working with various television shows to promote the MES inflatable
booths and enclosures; and participating in racecar sponsorships." (Id.). Even more specifically,
MES alleges that it "has exhibited and demonstrated its inflatable booths and enclosures at
numerous trade shows throughout Texas and the United States, including SEMA, Mobile Tech
Expo (MTE), International Buildiners Show, PB Expo, NHRA, PDRA, and PRJ" and that it has
features its products on numerous television shows including "TruckU, 2 Guys Garage, Motorhead
Garage, Performance TV, Wheels TV, Diesel Brothers, Garage Squad, Graveyard Cars, Girl Gang
Garage, Carcuss, Detroit Muscle, Ellen's Design Challenge, The Great Give Back, Bad Chad,
Counts Kustoms, DupliColor TV, Goozquad, Hoonigan, and Rad Rides by Troy." (Id. at 17- 18).
These allegations support MES' s contention that its "trade dress has become of famous and well-
known indicator of the origin and quality of [its] mobile inflatable paint booths." (Id. at 35).
The Court finds that these factual allegations state a plausible claim that the alleged trade
dress is "famous" under the Texas Business and Commerce Code, or "is widely recognized by the
Case 4:24-cv-04929 Document 31 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 11

public throughout this state or in a geographic area in this state as a designation of source of the
goods or services of the mark 's owner" due to considerations such as the "duration, extent and
geographic reach of the advertisement" and "the amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales
of goods or services." See TEX. Bus. & COM. CODE§ 16.03(b). Accordingly, the Court denies the
Motion to Dismiss as to Count VII.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, All-Star's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 23) is
DENIED.
It is so ordered.
x-
Signed on this the J.- \.{ 	day of July 2026.
~\~Andrew S. Han en
United States District Judge
11
Case 4:24-cv-04929 Document 31 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 11