Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, et al., No. 24 C 11697, (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2025) (Alonso, J.).

Judge Alonso granted defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this Schedule A trademark case, holding that truthfully stating that replacement parts  are compatible with trademarked goods does not constitute trademark infringement.

Bestway, sells above-ground swimming pools using the BESTWAY registered trademark. Bestway sued 322 defendants for using the BESTWAY mark on Amazon listings for pool parts and accessories. The moving defendants’ listings stated their products were compatible with or meant for use in Bestway pools, typically alongside references to other pool manufacturers like Intex and Coleman.

The Court held that merely using a trademark to truthfully inform buyers that parts will fit the trademarked products of another manufacturer is not infringement. Citing Taylor Instrument Cos. v. Fawley-Brost Co., 139 F.2d 98 (7th Cir. 1943), the Court noted this principle is well-established in the Seventh Circuit.

Key to the Court’s analysis was that defendants used “Bestway” in plain text alongside competitors’ marks, with nothing in the language, typography, or graphic design suggesting the term identified the source of the listed products rather than compatible pools. The Court distinguished cases where sellers made trademarked terms conspicuous compared to other listing information.

The Court rejected Bestway’s likelihood of confusion claim, finding that context and common sense showed the listings were “plainly posted by independent sellers” using multiple manufacturers’ marks “to inform consumers that their parts will fit the pools of those manufacturers.” Without any non-conclusory allegations of actual confusion or intent to palm off, and given the clear compatibility context, no plausible inference of likelihood of confusion existed.

Significantly, the Court warned that accepting Bestway’s theory would prevent selling replacement part without risk of trademark infringement claims.