In a landmark legal battle, Ultra Bond, Inc. and its owner, Richard Campfield, emerged victorious in their appeal against Safelite Group, Inc. and its affiliates. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned key decisions, breathing new life into Ultra Bond’s allegations of Lanham Act violations and trade secret theft. This blog explores the implications of this legal triumph and sheds light on the innovative windshield repair solutions offered by Ultra Bond, presenting an alternative to Safelite’s conventional approach.

The Lanham Act Triumph

  • The heart of the dispute lies in Ultra Bond’s assertion that Safelite falsely advertised the impossibility of repairing windshield cracks exceeding six inches, advocating for complete windshield replacement instead. The recent ruling by the Sixth Circuit rejected Safelite’s summary judgment, indicating that there is substantial evidence to suggest that Ultra Bond suffered economic injury due to Safelite’s allegedly misleading statements.
  • This decision paves the way for a jury trial, underscoring the critical role of the Lanham Act in fostering fair competition within the vehicle glass repair industry. As the legal battle unfolds, it becomes increasingly evident that the court recognizes the potential economic impact of deceptive advertising on competitors like Ultra Bond.

Navigating Trade Secrets and Legal Preemption

  • Safelite’s counterclaims alleged that Ultra Bond pilfered trade secrets, a charge met with legal scrutiny. The court affirmed the district court’s preemption decision on Safelite’s claims of conversion, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with contract, guided by the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA). The appellate court overturned the summary judgment granted to Ultra Bond with regards to Safelite’s OUTSA claim. They emphasized the need for a more thorough examination in the lower court.
  • This development highlights the complex interplay between protecting trade secrets and ensuring fair competition, prompting a deeper dive into the specifics of Safelite’s allegations and their implications for the automotive glass repair industry. The court’s decision to revisit the OUTSA claim underscores the evolving nature of legal battles in the realm of trade secrets.

A Timely Defense: The OUTSA Claim

  • The court’s decision to reopen Safelite’s OUTSA claim injects a renewed sense of urgency into the legal proceedings. Contrary to initial rulings, the appellate court deemed Safelite’s claim not time-barred, requiring a closer evaluation in the lower court.
  • This development underscores the evolving nature of legal battles and the importance of meticulous examination in cases involving trade secrets, setting the stage for further deliberations on the merits of Safelite’s allegations. As the OUTSA claim is revisited, both Ultra Bond and Safelite are thrust into a focused examination of timelines, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of the temporal aspects that govern trade secret litigation.

The Unraveling of Unfair Competition

  • In a decisive move, the court upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Ultra Bond on Safelite’s unfair competition claim. The ruling emphasized the lack of evidence supporting Safelite’s contention that Ultra Bond’s statements were false or had diverted customers away from Safelite. This outcome reinforces Ultra Bond’s commitment to transparency and quality service, positioning it as a reliable alternative for windshield crack repair.
  • The court’s affirmation of summary judgment signals a strong stance on the need for concrete evidence in unfair competition claims, providing clarity on the standards required to establish false statements and customer diversion. Ultra Bond’s dedication to transparency not only withstands legal scrutiny but emerges stronger, solidifying its reputation as a trustworthy choice for windshield repair.


As Ultra Bond celebrates its legal triumph, the spotlight shifts to the future of windshield repair. This victory not only validates their commitment to fair competition but also underscores the need for innovative solutions in the automotive glass industry. Customers seeking windshield crack repair that transcends conventional norms now have a compelling alternative in Ultra Bond, steering clear of the limitations posed by Safelite’s outdated practices. The legal landscape may have shifted, but Ultra Bond’s dedication to excellence remains unwavering.