YOUNGSTOWN — Two Hubbard fireworks distributors have filed an amended lawsuit in U.S. District Court against a Kansas company with a similar sounding name, alleging the Kansas company is intentionally misleading customers into thinking it is the Hubbard companies.

Wholesale Fireworks Corp. and Wholesale Fireworks III Inc., both of 2665 N. Main St. in Hubbard, sued Wholesale Fireworks Enterprises LLC of Pittsburg, Kansas, in January and filed an amended complaint earlier this month.

The Hubbard companies state that because their businesses are near the Pennsylvania border, they receive business from Pennsylvania and West Virginia customers.

Wholesale Fireworks Inc. was incorporated in 1982, and Wholesale Fireworks III was incorporated in 1994. Richard Naples Sr. is owner of the majority interest in each of the companies.

The Kansas company is believed to do business in many states, including Pennsylvania and West Virginia. And though it is not licensed in Ohio, it apparently advertises to — and does business with — Ohio residents, the suit states. The Kansas company started doing business in Pennsylvania and West Virginia near the Hubbard company’s operations in early 2019, the suit states.

The Kansas company advertised and offered coupons for purchase of fireworks using the words “wholesale fireworks” without distinguishing its business from the Hubbard companies. As a result, customers “did mistake and confuse the (Kansas company’s) business with the Hubbard companies’ business,” the suit states. Customers have tried to use the Kansas companies’ coupons at the Hubbard companies’ store and were upset when the coupons were not honored, damaging relationships with some of its customers, the suit states.

The Hubbard companies have owned and used the name Wholesale Fireworks in interstate commerce for about 38 years and have spent millions of dollars advertising the name, the suit states.

Other companies have started businesses with the words Wholesale Fireworks in their names but have added a word or two to distinguish themselves from the Hubbard companies, such as “F & V Wholesale Fireworks,” but the Kansas company intentionally failed to do that and refused to do it, the suit states.

Examples of the confusion that has resulted from the Kansas company’s existence are an invoice from a media company for advertising the Kansas company bought that went to the Hubbard companies, and an invoice from a trucking company working with the Kansas company that went to the Hubbard companies.

The Kansas company also uses block lettering of its name in advertising that is similar to the lettering the Hubbard companies use, the suit states.

The suit, which is assigned to Judge Benita Y. Pearson, seeks to have the Kansas company modify its name and advertising and seeks unspecified monetary damages.

In its April 16 reply to the amended complaint, the Kansas company denied purposely offering coupons without distinguishing its business from the Hubbard companies’ businesses.

The Kansas company denies that its business and the Hubbard companies compete because the Kansas company does not operate in Ohio, and also states the Hubbard companies should not operate in Pennsylvania and West Virginia because they are not licensed there.

The Kansas company also alleges the Hubbard companies “have no protectable rights in the term ‘wholesale fireworks.'”

The Kansas company stated it lacks sufficient information to form a belief on many of the other allegations and denied many other allegations without going into specifics.

The Kansas company also has filed a motion to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

erunyan@tribtoday.com