Posts Tagged ‘George Fennell’

FireClean v. Fennel / Steel Shield Technologies Settled

Friday, April 28th, 2017

Just over a year ago, we reported that FireClean, LLC had sued George Fennell and Steel Shield Technologies in federal court for false advertising.  Now, they’ve settled.  As is so common in these cases, we’ll never know the details of the agreement, but considering FireClean released a statement first, I’d imagine that they are smiling a little bit more than “Dr” Fennell and Steel Shield Technologies.

FireClean LLC is pleased to announce, in connection with the George Fennell/Steel Shield litigation, that the dispute between the parties has been resolved to their mutual satisfaction.

Best of luck to all involved.

Fireclean Issues Update Regarding Lawsuit Against George Fennell and Steel Shield for False Advertising

Friday, July 1st, 2016

Today saw action in the court room regarding Fireclean’s federal lawsuit against suit against George Fennell and Steel Shield for false advertising. Fennell had petitioned the court to dismiss the case. However, presiding Judge Ellis saw enough evidence to go forward with the suit.

Consequently, Fireclean issued this statement on Facebook regarding this order.

FireClean LLC is pleased to inform its customers, dealers, and followers that Judge T.S. Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia denied George Fennell and Steel Shield’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Motion to Dismiss this morning. Judge Ellis ruled that *all* of the Defendants’ false statements, including statements that equate FIREClean® to Crisco™ and Wesson™ oils, are actionable under principles of defamation and false advertising. The case proceeds.

We would like to thank everyone for their support and wish you a safe and happy Independence Day weekend!

Below is a copy of the order.

fireclean vs fennell

Fireclean has also filed a separate lawsuit against Vuurwapen Blog, its owner Andrew Touhy and Everett Baker alleging defamation for a sereies of articles published on Vuurwapen Blog regarding the Fireclean firearm lubricant.

In response, Andrew Touhy’s legal team has made a very compelling case that the current venue in Virginia is not where the trial should be held and have asked to have it dismissed. That question will most likely be settled by the court later this month.

Regardless, as Fennell implicated Tuohy in a Facebook post, the judge’s ruling in the Fennell case assuredly means that Tuohy will be included in the discovery phase of the Fennell case which should commence shortly. Consequently, efforts to stave off discovery in Tuohy’s suit look to be stymied.

Fireclean LLC Sues George Fennell And Steel Shield Technologies In Federal Court Alleging False Advertising

Friday, April 1st, 2016

Fireclean is on a tear. Yesterday, we told you that they have sued Andrew Tuohy and Everett Baker for Defamation. We also told you there would be more, and here it is, the next one.

It seems George Fennell owns a company named Steel Shield Technologies which makes a firearms lubricant called Weapon Shield. According to the suit, George Fennell is a competitor of Fireclean and relies heavily on Facebook to promote his brand.

Fireclean alleges defamation by Fennell and his company. They also say Fennell referred to their product as “Pam”, “Wesson Oil”, “Criso” and other oils in videos and social media posts they claim were meant to discredit their lubricant. In another instance Fireclean offers, Fennell claimed that “My problem is it will cost someone their life someday.”

Specifically, Fireclean claims that Fennell violated the Lanham Act. They are citing the misrepresentation clause (USC §1125a (1)(B)) and not the trademark portion of the law.

15 U.S.C. § 1125 – False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

(a) Civil action

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

By now you are asking yourself how this suit might be related to the blogger suit we discussed yesterday. Remember we said that Fennell is quite active on Facebook? Well, on January 14th, 2016, Fennell posted this message to Facebook. The “he” Fennell is initially referring to is Andrew Tuohy, which becomes clear in context later in the post.

Interesting enough, although that post was available yesterday (the same day Fennell was served by the court for this suit), it is now missing.

Feel free to read the entire complaint here: Fireclean LLC v Fennell Like the other suit, it is quite extensive and technical in nature as Fireclean makes its case that it is not any of the materials they claim Fennell says they are.

Once again, Fireclean lays out why the case should be tried in Federal Court of Eastern Virginia. They also demand a jury trial as well as compensatory damages, presumed damages for defamation, punitive damages in addition to court costs and attorney’s fees.