A Massachusetts garage-door company is asking a federal court to stop a smart-home technology company from using the name Door Systems, arguing that the later use creates a likelihood of consumer confusion and unlawfully appropriates the local company's established goodwill. Door Systems, Inc., headquartered in Framingham, filed the trademark-infringement lawsuit September 9 in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts against Latch, Inc., a Delaware company that rebranded commercially as DOOR after years of financial turmoil.
The dispute centers on a name collision that Door Systems says should never have happened. According to Boston.com, which first reported on the lawsuit, Door Systems has been incorporated in Massachusetts since January 2, 1974, and has grown into a regional operation with more than 130 trucks and 22 locations across the Northeast. The company sells, installs, and repairs residential, commercial, and industrial garage doors, along with motorized door operators, and traces its roots to 1961, when Estonian immigrant Heimar “Ed” Niit entered the Massachusetts garage door industry, according to Door Systems Metro Boston.
Latch, by contrast, began as a New York-based smart-lock startup incorporated in February 2014 as Latch Systems Inc. The company went public in 2021 through a $1.5 billion SPAC merger, but accounting restatements and revenue recognition errors forced its stock off the Nasdaq exchange in August 2023, as reported by The Real Deal. That same year, Latch acquired Honest Day's Work, and Jamie Siminoff, a former Ring CEO, was expected to become Latch's CEO, while the company relocated its headquarters from New York City to a 48,000-square-foot facility in Olivette, Missouri, per Business Wire.
A Corporate Rename Collides With a Local Registration
The dispute turns in part on Latch's corporate name change and its Massachusetts registrations. In August 2025, the Delaware business changed its corporate name from Latch Systems Inc. to Door Systems Inc., according to filings reviewed on SEC.gov. Latch had registered to transact business in Massachusetts in December 2024 under the Latch Systems Inc. name. By August 2025, Boston.com reported, the company signed a state registration acknowledging the naming conflict and agreeing not to do business locally as Door Systems Inc.
Door Systems alleges that Latch violated that undertaking by continuing to use the Door Systems Inc. name on its website, in contracts and in legal documents accessible in Massachusetts. The complaint says the Framingham company continued pressing Latch to stop, but that the alleged use persisted.
Warning Letter Sent Months Before Suit
Door Systems says it sent Latch a letter June 16 warning that the technology company's use of the name was believed to be unlawful, as reported by Boston.com. The complaint alleges that Latch's continued use of Door Systems Inc. is likely to confuse consumers about whether the companies are affiliated, connected or associated. Latch also operates a Boston office on Newbury Street and formed Door Property Management, LLC, in March 2024 to offer property management services in and around Boston, bringing its brand into direct commercial contact with the local market, according to OTC Markets filings.
The complaint asserts claims under the federal Lanham Act for false designation of origin, as well as Massachusetts common-law unfair competition, trade-name dilution, and unfair and deceptive acts or practices. Door Systems seeks damages, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and a jury trial, according to Boston.com. Those are allegations and requested remedies, not findings by the court. Lawyers for Door Systems did not respond to additional questions, and Latch, now branded simply as DOOR, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
How Courts Weigh Similar Names
Because the case is in Massachusetts federal court, the First Circuit's likelihood-of-confusion framework is central to the dispute. The analysis considers eight criteria, including the similarity of the marks, the parties' trade channels, their target buyers and evidence of actual confusion, according to ShinyRise. Door Systems' complaint relies on the company's long regional history and accumulated goodwill in arguing that it has the stronger claim to the Door Systems identity.
What First Circuit precedent says
In a separate Massachusetts trademark case decided August 28, 2008, involving an internet retailer of stained-glass supplies rather than garage-door and smart-home companies, the First Circuit said the analysis considers eight criteria when assessing likelihood of confusion among internet consumers, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That precedent does not decide whether these companies' marks are confusingly similar. It does, however, show that the court's inquiry is broader than the names alone: the comparison also examines how consumers encounter the businesses, whom they serve and whether confusion has actually occurred.
Latch's own product lines add a wrinkle to that comparison. The company offers garage-entry and access-control hardware, smart-home technology, and related software and services, an offering that has expanded through acquisitions of Honest Day's Work in July 2023 and HelloTech in June 2024, the latter of which gave Latch a nationwide network of independent technicians for installation and repair work, according to SEC filings. Latch's intellectual property portfolio also adds a wrinkle to that comparison.
A Company Under Financial Pressure
Latch's finances add another layer to the dispute. In filings for the year ending December 31, 2025, Latch, Inc. reported $34.6 million in unrestricted cash and equivalents, down from $75.4 million a year earlier, along with $27.3 million in net inventory, and 120 full-time U.S. workers. The company employed 120 full-time U.S. workers as of that same date.
The clash between the two companies fits a broader pattern of trademark litigation testing how far federal courts will go in protecting established regional brands from national rebrands. The dispute will test how federal courts apply trademark-confusion analysis to an established regional brand and a national rebrand.
