SANTA ANA, CA (BRAIN)—Dahon North America’s legal team has filed a second request asking a judge to bar competing brand Tern Bicycles from using what it claims are Dahon’s resources in operating its business.
In a motion filed Monday with the U.S. District Court of California, Dahon says it will suffer irreparable damage if Tern continues operations, as it stands to harm Dahon’s reputation and goodwill and cause significant customer confusion.
Last month, Dahon North America sued Tern Bicycles owners Josh and Florence Hon, and their company Mobility, Ltd. for unlawful competition. Josh, son of Dahon founder Dr. David Hon, and Florence, David’s wife, split from Dahon and started folding bike brand Tern in June with a team of former employees from Dahon’s Taiwan office.
A judge previously denied Dahon’s first request for a temporary restraining order that would have prevented Josh and Florence Hon from using any intellectual property registered to Josh Hon related to folding bicycles or accessories or any assets registered to Dahon and Hon Industrial Labs in Taiwan.
The most recent motion asks for essentially the same order, requesting that Josh Hon deliver full ownership of the Dahon website back to Dahon, and return all assets belonging to Dahon. Dahon has accused Josh and Florence of using Dahon’s resources to unlawfully compete with its established folding bike brand. Dahon claims that Josh and Florence unlawfully took control over Dahon’s website, employees, assets, funds, bank accounts and property while they were employed by Dahon.
Responding to Monday’s filing, Josh Hon said in an email that he and his attorneys had reviewed the request and see nothing new.
“Dahon North America have presented essentially the same arguments and same ‘evidence’ as filed before for the temporary restraining order. We consider this request to have the same absolute lack of merit as the previous filing and we would expect to have the same result, a denial by the judge,” Hon wrote.
Hon said his legal team would file a response to the motion. A hearing has been scheduled on the matter for Aug. 29.