AFL, online splicer-seller split initial legal round
Arizona court has granted SurplusEQ's motion to dismiss AFL's claim of common law unfair competition, while denying AFL's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Previously we reported on the separate lawsuits filed by AFL against Fiberoptic Hardware, LLC and SurplusEQ.com Inc., both of which are online sellers of splicing and other fiber-optic equipment made by AFL and other manufacturers. Recently we told you about AFL winning a preliminary injunction against Fiberoptic Hardware.
In an interview conducted via email, Daniel Parsons, president and chief executive officer of SurplusEQ.com emphasized that the cases against his firm and Fiberoptic Hardware are separate and distinct. "I have no connection with Fiberoptic Hardware," he told us. "What Fiberoptic Hardware has done or has been accused of doing is no reflection on me or my company." Parsons also pointed out that in recent legal proceedings, AFL failed to win a preliminary injunction against SurplusEQ.com, whereas it succeeded in its motion for a preliminary injunction in the Fiberoptic Hardware case.
The most recent round in the legal dispute between AFL and SurplusEQ had the court granting SurplusEQ's motion to dismiss AFL's claim of common law unfair competition and denying AFL's motion for a preliminary injunction. In the same decision, the court denied SurplusEQ's motion to dismiss AFL's claims of federal unfair competition, federal false advertising and copyright infringement and also denied SurplusEQ's motion to stay pending transfer as moot.
The order was issued on September 13 by Judge Frederick J. Martin of United States District Court D, Arizona. The order outlines in basic terms AFL's claims against SurplusEQ and SurplusEQ's answers to those claims. You can read the order here on leagle.com.
--Patrick McLaughlin, Chief Editor