Tags
Abizer Zanzi, Breach of Contract, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Gretchen S. Lund, Litigation Update, Trademark Infringement
BioCote Limited sues BioBond Adhesives for trademark infringement in N.D. Ind. (4:26-cv-00086)
BioCote Limited sued Lafayette adhesives maker BioBond Adhesives, Inc. on August 19, 2026, in the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division, Case No. 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, Indiana trademark and unfair competition claims, and breach of a brand license over BioBond’s BIOCOAT antimicrobial coatings.
The Complaint (below) is a licensee fight, not a stranger-on-the-internet fight. UK company BioCote owns U.S. Registration No. 5,306,757 for the BIOCOTE logo in Class 2 for antimicrobial powder-coating compositions (issued October 10, 2017; first U.S. sales under the mark pleaded as at least 2013). It licenses the chemistry and the mark to partners who put BIOCOTE on finished goods. BioBond, which makes plant-based adhesives and protective coatings in Lafayette, is pleaded as one of those partners. Under the Brand Agreement attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint, BioBond took a non-exclusive license to the BIOCOTE mark, agreed the IP stayed with BioCote, and promised it “must not use in its business any other trademark similar to the [BioCote] Mark,” must not apply to register “Biocote [or] any similar word,” and must not do anything that would diminish the registration.
BioBond then launched BioCoat SUP250 and BioCoat SWaE250 – water-based polyurethane and epoxy coatings marketed for food-processing surfaces and “defense against mold, fungi, and other microorganisms” – and, the Complaint says, filed a standard-character U.S. application for BIOCOAT covering anti-mold, anti-fungal, and anti-microbial protective coatings. BioCote says it learned of the filing from a watch notice, understood after discussions that BioBond would drop the mark and the application, then found the application still moving. It opposed at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Opposition No. 91303474) and now wants the Northern District to stop the use.
The pleaded theory is short: BIOCOTE and BIOCOAT share five of seven letters and, BioCote says, sound the same; the goods are antimicrobial coatings sold into overlapping industrial channels; and the customer was already a licensed BIOCOTE partner, which the Complaint says makes source confusion worse, not better. BioCote seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against BIOCOAT, destruction of marked packaging, refusal or cancellation of the application, damages (including a treble/enhanced-damages request on alleged willfulness), and fees. A jury is demanded.
Stay tuned for updates.
BioCote Limited vs. BioBond Adhesives, Inc.
Court Case Number: 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ
File Date: August 19, 2026
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Plaintiff: BioCote Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephanie L. Teaford, H. Jonathan Redway, Nicole M. Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Defendant: BioBond Adhesives, Inc.
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Unfair Competition / False Designation of Origin; Indiana Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition; Breach of Contract
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Gretchen S. Lund
Referred To: Abizer Zanzi
Complaint:
Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). The Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.
Indiana Intellectual Property Blog 