AT3 Tactical, LLC v. Holosun Technologies, Inc.

Background

AT3 Tactical, LLC is a Minnesota limited liability company with its principal place of business in St. Michael, Minnesota. Holosun Technologies, Inc. is incorporated in California with its principal place of business in City of Industry, California. Both companies produce and sell AR-15 parts and accessories, including gun sights.

AT3 began using the mark "ARO" in connection with its ARO Micro Red Dot Reflex Sight on August 19, 2019, and has since expanded the ARO product line. AT3 has sold approximately $3 million worth of ARO sights and its products have been reviewed in YouTube videos and firearm-related blogs. AT3's ARO mark was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on November 11, 2025, after AT3 applied for registration on February 13, 2025 — shortly after attending a Las Vegas gun show in January 2025 where Holosun debuted its own ARO line.

Holosun prepared to launch an ARO-branded red-dot-sight series in 2024. Before launching, Holosun searched "ARO" on the USPTO website, found no registered marks, and states it was unaware of AT3's mark. Holosun debuted the ARO line in January 2025 and put it on sale publicly in April 2025. After AT3 received its trademark registration, it sent Holosun a cease-and-desist letter and submitted Amazon takedown requests against every Holosun ARO product. Amazon removed those listings. Holosun then rebranded its ARO line to "ARO-CORE" or "ARO-EVO," but Amazon continued to limit sales of some rebranded products because AT3 refused to withdraw its takedown request.

AT3 alleges that Holosun's use of the ARO mark caused its own ARO sales to plummet, displaced its products in online search results, and that AI tools confused Holosun's products with AT3's by referring to a "Holosun AT3 Tactical red dot sight." AT3 filed this action on January 5, 2026, asserting four claims: (1) trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); (2) unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) deceptive marking under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and (4) common-law trademark infringement.

On January 29, 2026, Holosun filed a separate lawsuit against AT3 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging AT3 infringed Holosun's copyrights and obtained the ARO trademark registration in bad faith, and seeking cancellation of the registration. That California litigation remained in its early stages at the time of this ruling.

Holosun's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue

Improper Venue

Holosun moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper venue, arguing that the events giving rise to AT3's claims did not occur substantially in Minnesota. The court noted that AT3's only example of Minnesota-based conduct under the standard it originally pleaded — that a third-party Minnesota retailer advertised Holosun's products — was doubtful as a basis for venue in a trademark action, because the venue statute focuses on the defendant's relevant activities.

However, AT3 alternatively argued in response to the motion that venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), which allows suit in a district where any defendant "resides" — defined for corporations as any district where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. AT3 submitted evidence that Holosun's website directs customers to at least eight authorized Minnesota dealers, that at least two of those dealers sell Holosun ARO products specifically, that another dealer carries dozens of Holosun products, and that Holosun has a sales representative based in Maple Lake, Minnesota. AT3 also cited Holosun's own California complaint stating that Holosun works closely with and maintains oversight over its distributors and resellers.

Holosun provided no response to AT3's § 1391(b)(1) argument and did not argue that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. The court held that a plaintiff need not plead a specific venue basis in the complaint because venue is an affirmative defense, and a plaintiff may invoke it in response to a challenge. Because Holosun failed to argue that venue was improper under § 1391(b)(1) or that personal jurisdiction was lacking, the court concluded venue is proper in Minnesota and denied the motion to dismiss.

Transfer for Convenience Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

Holosun alternatively sought transfer to the Central District of California under § 1404(a), which permits transfer to a more convenient forum even when venue is proper. The moving party bears the burden of showing transfer is warranted, and courts give considerable deference to a plaintiff's chosen forum.

AT3's Motion for Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy" requiring the moving party to establish: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) likelihood of irreparable harm absent relief, (3) that the balance of equities favors the moving party, and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. The court found all four factors favor denying the motion.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Trademark infringement under the Lanham Act requires showing (1) a valid, protectible mark and (2) a likelihood of consumer confusion. AT3 easily satisfied the first element because its registered ARO mark carries a presumption of validity and distinctiveness.

For the likelihood-of-confusion element, the court analyzed the six Eighth Circuit factors:

Likelihood of Irreparable Harm

Because AT3 did not show a likelihood of success, it was not entitled to the Lanham Act's statutory presumption of irreparable harm. AT3 therefore needed to show harm that is "certain and great" with a "clear and present need for equitable relief."

The court found two independent grounds for rejecting this factor:

First, AT3's delay undermined its claim of urgency. AT3 knew by January 2025 that Holosun would launch ARO-branded products and understood the threat to its business, evidenced by its nearly immediate USPTO filing. Yet AT3 waited until January 5, 2026 to file suit and another month to file the preliminary injunction motion — a 13-month gap from learning of the allegedly infringing products to seeking emergency relief. The court found this delay unreasonable and inconsistent with a claim of irreparable harm, noting that AT3's decision to pursue informal negotiations and Amazon takedown requests while allegedly suffering irreparable harm cut against the urgency of its claims.

Second, AT3 failed to demonstrate the substance of irreparable harm. Its assertions about eroding brand recognition were speculative and based only on AT3's own subjective belief, unsupported by actual evidence of consumer confusion. Regarding lost sales, past losses cannot establish irreparable harm (which is future-focused), and AT3 made no argument that future lost sales could not be compensated through monetary damages. The court found AT3 had not shown harm that defies calculation and therefore warrants an injunction.

Balance of the Equities

Because the court found AT3 had not shown a likelihood of success that Holosun's rebranded products infringe AT3's mark, an injunction would stop Holosun from selling products that AT3 had not yet demonstrated it could lawfully prevent Holosun from selling. This factor favored Holosun.

Public Interest

AT3 argued the public interest in purchasing clarity favored an injunction. Because the court found no likelihood of confusion, this argument was unpersuasive.

Disposition

The court denied Holosun's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue (ECF No. 15) and denied AT3's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22). The case remains pending in the District of Minnesota.