IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—W.D. Wash.: Dismissal denied in sterilization technology dispute, (Jan 5, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims for trademark infringement survived a motion to dismiss because it was plausibly alleged that the marks were similar, the goods and services were related, and the channels of trade overlapped.

A manufacturer of custom automated assembly machines and engineering services under the mark AST, including fabrication of sterilization devices that could be used in the pharmaceutical industry, stated claims for infringement against a potential competitor, the U.S. District Court in Seattle has held. The complaint plausibly alleged sufficient facts for a finding of likelihood of confusion between the plaintiff’s AST mark and the defendant’s STERIS AST mark under the Sleekcraft factors (Automated Systems of Tacoma, LLC v. Steris Corporation, No. 2:24-cv-01028-JLR, (W.D. Wash. Dec. 30, 2025)).

Automated Systems of Tacoma, LLC (Automated Systems) was the registered owner of the AST® mark, for use with “custom fabrication for others of automated assembly machines for use in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, carbon fiber, hygiene and aerospace industries” and “[e]ngineering services, namely, custom engineering design services for others of automated assembly machines for use in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, carbon fiber, hygiene, and aerospace industries.” Automated Systems brought suit for infringement against Steris Corporation (Steris), alleging that Steris infringed its registered mark in the name it used for its “Applied Sterilization Technologies” division, AST or STERIS AST. Steris moved to dismiss.

Trademark infringement. Steris did not dispute Automated Systems’ ownership of a protectible mark, only the likelihood of confusion. The court considered the Sleekcraft factors. Steris argued the marks were dissimilar because it always prefaced its use of AST with its house mark STERIS, but the court found that this was not sufficient to show dissimilarity as a matter of law. Automated Systems’ mark was conceptually strong because it consisted of arbitrary letters. Automated Systems had plausibly alleged the goods and services were related due to their use in the pharmaceutical industry, at least sufficiently for the pleading stage. The channels of trade overlapped, as it was alleged both companies had presented at the same trade shows. Consumer care was not plausibly alleged to be low, because although Automated Systems pleaded that it was low, this contradicted statements it had made before the USPTO. The court found that plausible factual allegations regarding enough of the Sleekcraft factors to support the claim and denied the motion to dismiss as to trademark infringement.

Washington Consumer Protection Act and unfair competition. Steris’s argument as to these claims hinged on its argument that Automated Systems had failed to properly plead trademark infringement. Because the court had declined to dismiss the trademark infringement claim, it likewise denied dismissal of these claims.

The court denied the motion to dismiss.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-01028-JLR.

Judge: Robart, J.

Attorneys: John J. Bamert (Bamert Regan PLLC) for Automated Systems of Tacoma LLC. Christian William Marcelo (Perkins Coie LLP) for Steris Corp.

Companies: Automated Systems of Tacoma LLC; Steris Corp.

Cases: Trademark WashingtonNews