IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D. Tex.: Maida’s Belts’ claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition against Maida’s Boots to move forward, (Mar 17, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Jury to decide claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.

A Texas federal court granted in part and denied in part Lasting Designs, LLC’s (doing business as Maida’s) motion for summary judgment in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute involving numerous members of Houston, Texas’ boot-and-belt-making Maida family. The district court granted a partial summary judgment to Maida’s (referred to as “Maida’s Boots” in the opinion) regarding an unjust enrichment claim. Additionally, the motion for summary judgment was granted as to the issue of abandonment, because Maida’s Boots did not abandon its use of the Maida’s marks in the period between Maida’s Black Jack’s bankruptcy and the formation of Lasting Designs, LLC (Maida's Belts and Buckles, Inc. v. Lasting Designs, LLC, No. 4:22-cv-00577 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2026)).

Background. Maida started his boot and shoe making career when he founded Maida & Cuccia in downtown Houston. He later founded the Houston Shoe Hospital, which specialized in shoe repair. Maida’s son took over running the Houston Shoe Hospital, and he ran it after his father’s death. To ensure the next generation could inherit the Maida legacy, his son trained both of his sons (Maida’s grandsons) in the art of boot making and shoe repair while they worked alongside him at the Houston Shoe Hospital.

In 1983, Maida’s son left the Houston Shoe Hospital to start his own company, which was incorporated as Maida's Black Jack Boot Co., Inc. (Maida's Black Jack), and opened a store named Maida’s. In December 2009, Maida’s Black Jack filed for bankruptcy after it was unable to pay a personal injury claim made against the business. In the months after the bankruptcy was finalized, another family member, Maida’s granddaughter, L. Regan, worked with her family to get the family’s boot business up and running again. At some point before August 2010, the family organized Lasting Designs, LLC. On August 11, 2010, Lasting Designs, LLC filed a d/b/a record with Harris County, Texas stating that Lasting Designs, LLC would conduct business under the name “Maida's.”

Another grandson of Maida had a passion for making belts and collecting rare sterling silver buckles, which was an interest and specialty that was somewhat distinct from his boot and shoe making heritage. In November 1990, he started a belt and buckle business called “Maida’s Belts and Buckles.” Maida's Belts and Buckles, Inc. (Maida's Belts) has been operating in Houston since it began in 1990. He filed a trademark application for the name “Maida’s” in association with the products and services he provided under that mark but did not include boots, shoes, footwear, or repair of boots and shoes in his application, as his goal with filing was to protect his craft of custom belt and buckle manufacturing.

The USPTO issued Maida’s Belts two trademarks. Maida’s Boots filed a Petition for Cancellation of Maida's federal trademark registrations in the USPTO. Shortly thereafter, Maida’s Belts filed a lawsuit against Maida’s Boots alleging claims for federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Maida’s Boots then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Maida’s Belts’ claims. Maida's Boots also moved on its affirmative defense of laches and its counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Trademark Registration Invalidity.

Trademark infringement and unfair competition claims. The district court found that the only evidence Maida's Boots presents to prove that any common law trademark rights in the Maida's mark were transferred from the granddaughter L. Regan to Maida's Boots is Regan's own declaration. Thus, an issue of material fact remains regarding Regan's alleged assignment of the trademarks to Lasting Designs, LLC (Maida’s Boots) and this issue cannot be resolved at summary judgment.

However, regarding the abandonment of the Maida’s marks the district court found that the evidence demonstrated that Maida's Boots had not abandoned its use of the Maida's mark after the bankruptcy and before Lasting Designs, LLC started using the mark. Throughout the summer, after bankruptcy Regan and her family worked to fulfill the final customer orders and repairs that had been undertaken by Maida's Black Jack. Those orders were presumably completed under the name "Maida's" as that was the company those customers had purchased from originally. Additionally, it is clear from its relatively quick reorganization as Lasting Designs, LLC, d/b/a Maida's that Maida's Boots intended to continue using the "Maida's" mark as the family reorganized and rebuilt after its bankruptcy.

The district court noted that both Maida's Belts and Maida's Boots have developed a reputation associated with the Maida's marks in the Houston area, if not beyond, and that media sources have reported on that reputation. However, neither party has offered any evidence of the relevant magazines and newspaper’s circulation, or any consumer-survey evidence or other evidence that would be helpful to the district court in discerning their impact on the consuming public. Additionally, the summary-judgment record is lacking in evidence regarding which party may have established secondary meaning first, and whether that occurred before the junior user began using the Maida's marks. The district court noted that such an inquiry is necessary to determine which party was the senior user of the Maida's marks and, thus, which party owns the marks. Without evidence to discern which party may have established secondary meaning first, the district court cannot declare at summary judgment that Maida's Boots is the prior user of the mark or that Maida's Belts has failed to establish secondary meaning.

The district court also noted that Maida's Belts has sufficiently raised the presumption of validity and acquired distinctiveness because it presented proof of its trademark registration with the USPTO. As a result, the burden of production shifts to Maida's Boots to produce evidence that the Maida's marks had not acquired secondary meaning at the time of registration.

Accordingly, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the resolution of multiple elements of Maida's Belts trademark infringement claims, so Maida's Boots’ motion for summary judgment was denied.

Unjust enrichment claim. Maida's Boots moved for summary judgment on Maida's Belts' claim for unjust enrichment under Texas law, arguing that Maida's Belts' made no specific allegations of fraud, duress, or the taking of an undue advantage with respect to its claim for unjust enrichment," and thus cannot establish a dispute of material fact. The district court found that Maida's Belts has not presented any evidence that would suggest Maida's Boots obtained any benefit from Maida's Belts by fraud, duress, or the taking of undue advantage. Accordingly, Maida's Belts failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment as to this claim.

Laches defense. Maida's Boots moved for summary judgment on its affirmative defense of laches, arguing that Maida's Belts knew about Maida's Boots' predecessor's ongoing use of the "Maida's" name for its business when Maida's Belts adopted "Maida's" and started using it for its own business. However, the district court noted that it is not clear as to when the confusion or infringement may have begun in this case. Accordingly, Maida's Boots’ motion for summary judgment as to its laches defense was denied.

Trademark invalidity. The district court also noted that a fact issue remains as to whether the Maida's marks have gained secondary meaning and thus, acquired distinctiveness. Accordingly, issuing a declaratory judgment and/or cancellation of Maida's Belts' marks is inappropriate at this stage in the litigation. Accordingly, Maida's Boots’ motion for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim of trademark invalidity was denied.

The Case is No. 4:22-cv-00577.

Judge: Hanen, A.

Attorneys: Paul Stephen Beik (Beik Law Firm, PLLC) for Maida's Belts and Buckles, Inc. Karen Bryant Tripp (Karen Bryant Tripp, Attorney at Law) for Lasting Designs, LLC.

Companies: Maida's Belts and Buckles, Inc.; Lasting Designs, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Trademark TexasNews GCNNews