A knife manufacturer is seeking legal action to stop what it describes as the unauthorized sale and promotion of goods that bear its trademarks, which it says could mislead consumers and harm its business reputation. The complaint was filed by Microtech Knives, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on April 1, 2026, naming NorthEDC Ecom, LLC; NorthEDC, LLC; and an individual identified as John Doe as defendants.
According to the filing, Microtech Knives alleges that the defendants have been promoting, selling, offering for sale, and distributing goods that bear counterfeits or confusingly similar imitations of Microtech’s registered trademarks (the “Microtech Marks”). These activities are said to occur through websites and various e-commerce stores operating under the “NorthEDC” name. The company claims these actions violate federal trademark laws including sections 1114, 1116, and 1125(a) of Title 15 of the United States Code (the Lanham Act), as well as state laws related to trademark infringement and deceptive trade practices in North Carolina.
The complaint outlines that Microtech Knives is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Mills River, North Carolina. It states that Microtech owns all rights to its marks—including several federally registered trademarks for knives and related accessories—and has used these marks continuously since at least 1994. Among these is an unregistered mark for a product called the BEE push-dagger. The company emphasizes that its products are recognized for their quality and innovation within the industry.
The document details how defendants allegedly operate under unknown identities or business structures and may reside or conduct operations outside the United States. It asserts that they target U.S. consumers through online storefronts accessible nationwide—including within North Carolina—using interactive websites where customers can purchase products using U.S. currency with shipping arranged to U.S. addresses.
Microtech’s complaint describes a pattern of consumer complaints associated with NorthEDC’s online presence: “the sale of goods that are never delivered or significantly delayed; the use of invalid or misleading shipping information; the sale of counterfeit or low-quality products; and failure to provide refunds or meaningful customer support.” The company also notes reports that some purchased goods have been intercepted due to counterfeit postage or were never shipped at all.
Central to Microtech’s allegations is that NorthEDC advertises knives closely resembling Microtech’s BEE push-dagger model—sometimes using identical names and logos—on social media platforms such as Facebook as well as on their own website. Side-by-side comparisons included in the filing show similarities between what Microtech calls “Counterfeit Products” sold by NorthEDC and genuine Microtech items.
The complaint argues: “Consumers are likely to be and, on information and belief, actually have been confused as to the source of Defendants’ Counterfeit Products,” leading them to believe these items are authorized by or affiliated with Microtech Knives. The company further claims it does not distribute any products through NorthEDC nor has it given permission for such use of its marks.
Legal claims presented include federal trademark counterfeiting under section 32 of the Lanham Act; federal trademark infringement; unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act; common law trademark infringement; common law unfair competition under North Carolina law; and deceptive trade practices under N.C.G.S § 75-1.1. Each claim asserts that defendants’ actions were willful and intended to trade upon Microtech’s established goodwill.
Microtech requests several forms of relief from the court: temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions preventing further alleged counterfeiting or infringing activity; orders requiring third-party service providers (such as domain registrars) to disable access to infringing sites; transfer of domain names or accounts used by defendants; disclosure of defendant identities; destruction of counterfeit goods in defendants’ possession; notification to customers about unlawful sales; accounting for profits derived from alleged infringements; statutory damages up to $2 million per counterfeit mark per type of good sold; treble damages where appropriate; attorney fees; costs; pre-judgment interest on damages awarded; punitive damages if warranted by state law claims; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
The attorneys representing Microtech Knives are William Smith from Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd P.A., Greenville SC (wsmith@hsblawfirm.com), and Jeffrey T. Stover from Charleston SC (jstover@hsblawfirm.com). The case is identified as Case No.: 1:26-cv-93.
Source: 126cv00093_Microtech_Knives_Inc_v_NorthEDC_Ecom_LLC_Complaint_Western_District_North_Carolina.pdf
