Hammerless Tools LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and Eight Eighteen, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company v. Jonathan Clausen, an individual; Clausen, Inc., a Washington Corporation, AR-TT LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and Lilac City, LLC, a Washington limited liability company

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00413
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Dec 11, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 HAMMERLESS TOOLS LLC, a 10 Washington limited liability company, and No. 2:24-CV-00413-SAB 11 EIGHT EIGHTEEN, LLC, an Idaho 12 limited liability company, 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. ORDER GRANTING RENEWED 15 JONATHAN CLAUSEN, an individual; MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 16 CLAUSEN, INC., a Washington INJUNCITON 17 Corporation, AR-TT LLC, a Washington 18 limited liability company; and LILAC 19 CITY, LLC, a Washington limited liability 20 company, 21 Defendants. 22 23 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 24 ECF No. 53. Plaintiffs are represented by Caleb Hatch and Johanna Tomlinson. 25 Defendant Jonathan Clausen is representing himself. No notice of appearance has 26 been filed for Defendants Clausen, Inc., AR-TT LLC, and LILAC CITY, LLC. 27 On September 30, 2025, the Court granted defense counsel’s Motion to 28 Withdraw. ECF No. 58. In that Order, the Court notified Defendants that a 1 corporation must be represented in federal court by licensed counsel. The 2 Corporate Defendants were directed to obtain counsel. 3 On October 15, 2025, the Court granted Defendant Clausen’s Motion for 4 Extension of Time and continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for 5 Preliminary Injunction to November 24, 2025. ECF No. 64. 6 A status conference was held on October 23, 2025. Mr. Clausen was 7 instructed again that the corporate Defendants needed to obtain counsel, or default 8 judgment would be entered against them. 9 Nothing further has been filed by Defendants, and no notice of appearance 10 has been filed. 11 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction 12 Plaintiffs brought this action seeking to stop Defendant’s alleged breach of 13 contract, infringing use of Plaintiffs’ trademarks and any other confusingly similar 14 terms and cease infringement of Plaintiffs’ Design Patent No. D981199. 15 Plaintiffs allege that since the Settlement Agreement was reached in the 16 prior litigation, and the original motion for injunctive relief, Defendants not only 17 failed to cease their infringing acts, but created additional uses of Plaintiffs’ Marks, 18 and continue selling the Accused Products that are infringing Plaintiffs’ Design 19 Patent No. D981199 (the ‘D199 Patent”). Plaintiffs assert Defendants continue to 20 breach the settlement agreement and continue to infringe Plaintiffs’ trademarks and 21 design patent. 22 Motion Standard 23 “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that 24 should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of 25 persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). To obtain a 26 preliminary injunction, the moving party must show (1) they are likely to succeed 27 on the merits, (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 28 preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction 1 is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24– 2 25 (2008). The Ninth Circuit uses a “slide scale” approach under which these 3 factors are “balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a 4 weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 5 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). 6 Analysis 7 Based on the record before the Court, Plaintiffs haveestablished all four 8 elements to justify entering its requested preliminary injunction. First, Plaintiffs 9 haveshown they will likely succeed on the merits. The record indicates that 10 Defendants breached the Settlement Agreement and continues to infringe on 11 Plaintiffs’ trademarks and designs. Second, Plaintiffs have shown they are likely to 12 suffer irreparable harm from Defendants’ conduct. Plaintiffs’ evidence indicate 13 they have experienced a loss of control over their business reputation and damage 14 to their goodwill because of Defendants’ conduct. Third, the balance of hardships 15 favors Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ requested preliminary injunction is narrow. It is asking 16 Defendant to abide by the Settlement Agreement and law and cease use of 17 Plaintiffs’ Marks and patented design. Defendants will be able to continue 18 manufacturing tools that utilize their own unique design and do not directly 19 infringe on Plaintiffs’ ‘D199 Patent, nor trade off of Plaintiffs’ preexisting 20 goodwill. Finally, because the public has a right not to be deceived or confused, the 21 public interest is best served by enjoining Defendants. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 23 1. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 53, 24 is GRANTED. 25 2. Defendants are enjoined from using the following of Plaintiffs’ Marks: 26 HAMMERLESS IMPACT TECHNOLOGY, H.I.T., H.I.T. Tools, HIT Tool(s), 27 and related logos, in association with Defendants’ goods and services. 28 // 1 3. Defendants are enjoined from manufacturing, offering, or selling of Defendants’ goods with designs identical, or similar, to the design protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D981199; including, but not limited to, Defendants’ takedown tools. 5 4. Plaintiffs’ bond is set at $0.00. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to file this Order and provide copies to Plaintiff and counsel. 8 DATED this 11th day of December 2025. 9

AV TAS (are Stan Bastian 13 Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY TROTTINICTTANT