IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—E.D. Mich.: Construction company secures partial preliminary injunction in trademark suit against former partner, (May 14, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Competing construction businesses’ use of similar “Rocket” marks was likely to cause confusion but ruled that a non-compete clause did not cover services offered by the rebranded company.

A federal district court in Michigan has granted in part and denied in part a motion for preliminary injunction, holding that an exterior construction company was likely to succeed on its Lanham Act and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, but not on its breach of contract claim. The court found that the defendants, former partners, use of a similar “Rocket” name and stylized “R” logo was likely to cause consumer confusion and therefore warranted injunctive relief. However, it rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendants breached a non-compete clause, concluding that the clause applied only to exterior construction services and not to the defendants’ service-based business (Rocket Exteriors LLC v. Butcher, No. 2:26-cv-10057-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich. May 12, 2026)).

Background. Rocket Exteriors LLC, a construction company providing exterior improvement services, and its principal, Jesse Carpenter, brought the action against Michael Butcher and a network of affiliated entities, including Asgard Investments, Consulting and Management LLC, and MODOC Mechanical LLC (later rebranded as Rocket Service Pros). The dispute arose out of a deteriorated business relationship following Carpenter’s attempted purchase of Asgard’s 50% interest in Rocket Exteriors, an entity originally formed and managed within Butcher’s group of construction companies.

The plaintiffs asserted rights in unregistered trademarks comprising the “Rocket Exteriors” name and a distinctive stylized “R” logo, which they had used continuously in commerce since 2020 across advertising, uniforms, vehicles, and promotional materials. The defendants, after exiting Rocket Exteriors’ operations, rebranded MODOC Mechanical as “Rocket Service Pros” and adopted a logo featuring a nearly identical stylized “R,” albeit in a different color scheme. The services included HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and related home services marketed under the “Rocket Service” branding.

The dispute stemmed from a 2023 Partner Agreement that governed the parties’ relationship, followed by a 2025 Letter of Intent under which Carpenter sought to acquire Asgard’s stake in Rocket Exteriors. Although the defendants disputed the completion of the sale, the record showed that payments were made, accounts were transferred, and Butcher ceased involvement in the business. After rebranding one of his entities as “Rocket Service,” Carpenter initiated the suit alleging breach of contract, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trade secret violations. The plaintiffs have now filed an emergency motion seeking a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants’ use of the “Rocket” branding.

Non-compete clause interpretation. The court first addressed the breach-of-contract claim, applying Michigan law to interpret the non-compete clause. Citing Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 885 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. 2016), the court emphasized that contractual interpretation must give effect to the plain meaning of the agreement. It found that the phrase “business activities” was ambiguous but, in context, referred only to exterior construction services—the core function of Rocket Exteriors. Because the defendants’ new entity provided interior and mechanical services that Rocket Exteriors did not directly perform, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the breach claim.

Trademark ownership and goodwill. On trademark ownership, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that Butcher was the senior user. Relying on Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), the court held that trademarks are inseparable from the goodwill of the business in which they are used. It concluded that the marks belonged to Rocket Exteriors, regardless of whether ownership lay with Asgard or Carpenter, because the marks had been used exclusively in connection with that business. The court further observed that goodwill transferred with the sale of the business, even if not expressly stated.

Likelihood of confusion analysis. Applying the Sixth Circuit’s multi-factor test, as set out in Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Elby’s Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc., 670 F.2d 642 (6th Cir. 1982), the court undertook a detailed likelihood-of-confusion analysis. It found that the plaintiffs’ marks were conceptually strong and commercially recognized. The services offered by both parties, though not identical, were sufficiently related to create marketplace overlap. The similarity of the marks—particularly the identical stylized “R”—was given significant weight.

The court also considered evidence of actual confusion, noting a customer's message mistakenly associating Rocket Service with Rocket Exteriors. Although limited, the court found this evidence probative given the recent rebranding. Marketing channels overlapped, and the defendants’ intent was inferred from their knowledge of the plaintiffs’ marks and subsequent adoption of a similar branding strategy. On balance, the court concluded that the factors strongly supported a likelihood of confusion.

Irreparable harm and equitable factors. Turning to irreparable harm, the court relied on Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. CarMax, Inc., 165 F.3d 1047 (6th Cir. 1999) to reiterate that a finding of likely confusion ordinarily establishes irreparable injury. It further invoked the statutory presumption under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), finding no undue delay by the plaintiffs in seeking relief. The balance of harms favored the plaintiffs, as any hardship to the defendants arose from their own decision to adopt a confusingly similar mark. The public interest, the court held, supported preventing consumer confusion in the marketplace.

Relief granted. Accordingly, the court enjoined the defendants from using the “Rocket” name and the stylized “R” logo in any form, including on advertisements, equipment, and digital platforms, and required them to file a compliance statement within 14 days. However, it declined to impose restrictions based on the non-compete clause, allowing the defendants to continue their service-based operations under a non-infringing brand.

The Case is No. 2:26-cv-10057-LVP-KGA.

Judge: Parker, L.

Attorneys: Christopher Chesney (Cronkhite Counsel PLLC) for Rocket Exteriors LLC. Scott T. Seabolt (Hickey Hauck Bishoff Jeffers & Seabolt, PLLC) for Michael D. Butcher.

Companies: Rocket Exteriors LLC

Cases: Trademark MichiganNews GCNNews