.png)
Founded by David M. Semas (Semas), Metalast International, Inc. (MII) and Metalast International, LLC (MILLC) developed into an internationally recognized metal-finishing technology and chemical company enterprise serving the aerospace, defense, automotive, electronics, and general manufacturing industries. Beginning in 1993, Semas founded a company based on technology he brought over from Japan called Metalast USA. MII was launched and it established a temporary lab at Hixson Metal Finishing in Newport Beach, California. The business permanently relocated after building a technology center south of Reno, Nevada. MILLC did not become an operational company until July 1996.
After building a 17,000 ft.² Tech center in the small town of Minden he and his team of scientists, engineers, and technical specialists devoted nearly two decades conducting R&D, testing and invested tens of millions of dollars in developing specialty chemical formulations, patented proprietary manufacturing processes, corrosion-control technologies, computerized process-control systems, and technical support services. With the introduction of a creative and innovative national mobile marketing campaign by 2004 Metalast® became a respected and recognized brand within the metal-finishing, specialty chemical and corrosion control industry.
Also in 2004, MILLC entered into a licensing relationship with the United States Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) to commercialize the Navy's Trivalent Chromium Process (TCP), an environmentally preferable alternative to toxic hexavalent chromium, commonly known as Chrome 6. A recognized human carcinogen, Chrome 6 has historically been used extensively in corrosion-resistant coatings and surface treatments that promote paint adhesion and protect aluminum components across major industrial sectors, including aviation, aerospace, defense, telecommunications, computers, electronics, and manufacturing.
The serious health and environmental dangers associated with Chrome 6 gained widespread public attention through the acclaimed 2000 motion picture Erin Brockovich, starring Julia Roberts, which dramatized the real-life investigation of groundwater contamination involving this hazardous chemical. Following extensive research, development, testing, and qualification MILLC, under the management of Semas and MII, as one of the three Navy licensed companies, its Metalast® TCP-HF emerged as an important specialty chemical product, providing industry with a more environmentally responsible alternative to traditional chromate conversion coatings.
The Metalast® brand represented far more than a chemical formulation. It embodied the accumulated scientific knowledge, technical expertise, research, testing, quality-control systems, customer relationships, and commercial reputation developed by Semas and his technical team over approximately twenty years.
One of the greatest challenges facing MILLC and the Metalast® brand was gaining recognition and acceptance in an industry dominated by well-established chemical manufacturers such as DuPont, Dow Chemical, Henkel, AlzoNobel, Sherwin-Williams, and SurTec. These companies possessed longstanding reputations, extensive technical resources, and established relationships with major industrial manufacturers. By comparison, Metalast® was a relatively unknown newcomer seeking to introduce innovative chemical technologies into an industry where product qualification could require years of testing and substantial financial investment.
Major manufacturers were understandably reluctant to risk replacing proven chemical processes with unfamiliar alternatives. In certain applications, qualifying a new chemical could involve millions of dollars and many years in testing, engineering evaluations, and certification costs. Without the approval of the manufacturers and their engineering organizations responsible for establishing technical specifications, job shops and independent metal finishers could not, or in most cases would not readily adopt Metalast® products, regardless of their potential advantages.
Recognizing this fundamental obstacle, Semas conceived and launched one of the company's most ambitious and innovative marketing initiatives: the national award-winning T-REX (Touring Research and Educational EXhibit) Mobile Marketing Campaign. Over its three-year, multimillion-dollar nationwide tour, T-REX delivered approximately 1,200 complimentary technical seminars to more than 10,000 engineering and technical professionals at 450 major corporations in the country. Rather than relying upon conventional advertising or waiting for prospective customers to discover an unfamiliar brand, Metalast® brought its environmentally friendly technology and chemicals directly to the facilities of America's leading manufacturers.
These on-site educational seminars introduced scientist, engineers, technical directors, specification authorities, purchasing professionals, and quality-control personnel to Metalast® chemical technologies, their performance characteristics, and their potential environmental and commercial advantages. By eliminating the cost and inconvenience of traveling around the country and attending outside technical presentations, the campaign created opportunities to engage decision-makers who otherwise might never have considered evaluating the company's products.
The objective was not simply to sell chemicals. It was to persuade the people who controlled industrial specifications to authorize the testing and qualification of an entirely new chemical brand. The strategy proved instrumental in overcoming longstanding barriers to market entry. According to the company's historical records, the T-REX campaign helped generate more than 80 industry manufacturer specifications and approvals for Metalast® TCP-HF, establishing the technical credibility and market acceptance necessary for broader commercial adoption.
The significance of this achievement cannot be overstated. Without acceptance by the major manufacturers that controlled product specifications, the thousands of independent metal-finishing companies serving those manufacturers would have had little opportunity, or for that matter desire to use Metalast® chemistry.
The T-REX campaign was therefore much more than a promotional undertaking. It represented a substantial investment in building the Metalast® brand from relative obscurity into a recognized industrial technology, creating commercial relationships, technical approvals, and market opportunities that could not simply be purchased or replicated overnight.
Those achievements were the product of Semas's vision, investment, leadership, and the sustained efforts of the technical and commercial team he assembled—not the falsely claimed accomplishments of those who subsequently acquired the company's operating assets and are now trying to take credit for it.
In April 2013, following a contested series of financial and legal proceedings, Semas was removed as manager of MILLC and a court-appointed receiver assumed control of its operations. In November 2013, MILLC's assets were sold pursuant to an order of the Ninth Judicial District Court of Douglas County, Nevada. However, the sale documents improperly included the federally registered Metalast® trademarks, which were owned by Semas and MII, and we’re never owned by and only licensed to MILLC.
The court's approval of the asset sale did not establish ownership of trademarks that MILLC did not own or possess the legal authority to convey. Consequently, while the sale of MILLC's other assets were lawfully court-approved, the intentional inclusion of the trademarks was based upon an incorrect representation of ownership and did not transfer those trademark rights to the purchasers. In June of that year an attempt was made to hijack the trademark by filing with the USPTO a fabricated exhibit falsely alleging the Metalast® trademarks were part of a 2009 loan agreement.
Semas maintains that his removal and the subsequent takeover of MILLC were the result of a carefully orchestrated strategy that exploited the legal system through questionable financial representations, aggressive legal maneuvers, and substantial financial resources. According to Semas, the parties engineered a situation in which he was induced to acknowledge that MILLC could not meet its payroll obligations, creating the justification they needed to accelerate an outstanding loan, petition the court for the appointment of a receiver, and ultimately acquire control of the company's assets.
Backed by considerable capital and an extensive team of attorneys, the parties employed legal procedures and disputed representations that, while appearing technically permissible, raise serious questions concerning their underlying purpose, fairness, and ethical conduct. Semas believes these actions were not independent responses to a genuine financial emergency, but rather a calculated scheme in a coordinated effort to remove him from management and acquire the assets for pennies on the dollars on a business he had spent nearly twenty years building.
On January 27, 2015, the parties reached a binding settlement agreement during a federal court-supervised mediation conference conducted by the mediation Judge. Remarkably, within approximately three weeks, the opposing party attempted to repudiate the agreement, claiming there had been no "meeting of the minds" concerning their obligation to cease using the Metalast® trademark, name and brand.
During a February 19, 2015, conference, the Judge emphatically rejected that position, confirming that the settlement terms accurately reflected the agreement placed on the court record and that all the parties had been given every opportunity to understand and question its provisions. Expressing his disbelief, the Judge stated, "To say this wasn't the deal, well it was the deal." He further confirmed that the restrictions extended to the use of Metalast on all chemical products and in existing Navy-related specifications and commercial relationships.
The settlement was subsequently approved by the presiding Judge in March 2015, requiring the opposing party to cease using the Metalast® trademark, name and brand in commerce "in any fashion or manner whatsoever" following the 90-day transition period ending June 10, 2015. This documented transcript was an unsuccessful attempt of the opposing party to renege on the terms and conditions of the settlement and unwind an agreement shortly after entering into it provides important context for the subsequent disputes concerning compliance with its terms.
Rather than honoring the terms of this court-approved settlement agreement, the opposing party engaged in conduct that violated its provisions almost immediately, undermining the very purpose of the agreement and prolonging the disputes it was intended to resolve. The settlement was intended to resolve the parties' disputes and permit Semas to exercise his rights in the registered trademark without continued interference.
However, on June 3, 2015, just seven days before the deadline, frivolous litigation was initiated by the opposing party against Semas and members of his family. Semas maintains that the continuing litigation clouded the trademark's commercial status and substantially interfered with his ability to sell, license, or otherwise realize the economic benefits of his intellectual property.
The ensuing litigation extended for nearly a decade, ultimately producing US District Court Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in favor of Semas, a judgment concerning breach of the settlement agreement, an injunction against the opposing party, its partners and distributors prohibiting the use of Metalast® in any fashion or manner whatsoever and subsequent appellate decisions. The federal courts upheld the enforceability of the settlement restrictions governing the use of the Metalast® name. The remaining trademark-cancellation litigation ultimately concluded the entire lawsuit in May 2024 as upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A separate and potentially more consequential issue arose after the June 10, 2015 settlement deadline on August 21, 2015, when NAVAIR approved a product designation identifying a chemical as "[opposing party]-TCP-HF (formerly Metalast)." Semas maintains that this designation was obtained through representations that failed to disclose the restrictions imposed by the earlier federal settlement agreement. The significance of the designation extended well beyond an ordinary commercial trademark dispute. In effect the opposing party intentionally misrepresented material facts to NAVAIR personnel, the federal government issuing agency of QPL. Without QPL approval the opposing party and it’s manufacturing partners and distributors would have been out of the non-Chrome 6 business opening the door to its competitors.
Qualified Products List (QPL) approval is important in military and aerospace procurement because applicable specifications may require the use of products qualified by the responsible government authority. The DoD, defense contractors, specifying manufacturers, metal finishers, and other suppliers rely on approved product brand identities when purchasing chemicals and certifying that surface treatments comply with customer requirements.
Semas contends that identifying a different company's chemical as "formerly Metalast" is an absolute false claim. This is especially considering even the District Court has gone on record stating the opposing party was never “formerly Metalast”, specifically referring to the NAVAIR licensed as manufacturer specified company MILLC, as managed by Semas and MII. The opposing party bought the assets of MILLC, but continue to misrepresent the facts and create the impression their products are the continuation of the previously established Metalast® technology, trademark, name and brand. Although they were never formally Metalast the settlement agreement prohibits it use after June 10, 2015.
That representation carried substantial potential commercial value. Developing, testing, and qualifying a replacement product can require significant time and expense. Semas believes the disputed designation allowed the parties involved to preserve existing customer relationships, avoid potentially lengthy qualification delays, and benefit from the reputation established through Semas’s management and R&D and technical support team over approximately twenty years of Metalast® research, testing, development, marketing and specifications and approvals.
These circumstances raise serious questions concerning product brand identity, government qualification, customer reliance, and whether material information was disclosed to the responsible authorities and government agencies.
In September 2015, legal counsel acting for Semas issued a formal cease-and-desist letter to senior executives of the principal chemical manufacturing partner, one of the world's largest and most respected chemical companies. The executives were notified to stand down and immediately cease selling the chemical as it was.a false designation of origin mislabeling a product brand designation. The letter was sent by certified mail, with return receipts documenting delivery. Additional document demands and subpoenas followed in 2015 and 2016 and the lawful notices were ignored. Semas maintains that, despite formal notice of the court-approved settlement restrictions that the Metalast® trademark, name and brand could not be used in commerce in any fashion or manner whatsoever after June 10, 2015, the disputed product representations continued every single day, 24/7 month after month, year after year for more than a decade.
The Navy's Qualified Products Database (QPD) subsequently referenced a product-name-change letter dated April 17, 2019, after which available QPL records identify the chemical without the earlier "formerly Metalast" wording. The precise effective date of the removal remains subject to confirmation from the underlying Navy records. Of particular concern is that removing the words "formerly Metalast" nearly 4-years later after falsely branding the product listing would not correct the commercial impressions created during the preceding years. As of this date, it's customers, manufacturers and the industry believe the chemical brand is "formally Metalast."
Semas maintains that no comprehensive public correction or notification has been issued to affected customers, manufacturers, government procurement authorities, or the broader metal-finishing industry explaining the disputed use of the Metalast® trademark, name and brand. Whether any particular product met applicable chemical, performance, or qualification requirements is a separate technical question requiring examination of the relevant formulations, approvals, specifications, and testing records. The fact remains products are specified by the name of a chemical brand and not its formulation. The brand is what determines compliance.
In February 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law addressing the settlement agreement, issuing a court injunction prohibiting use of the Metalast® trademark, name and brand in commerce in any fashion or manner whatsoever after June 10, 2015. In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the breach-of-contract judgment and all other findings by the District Court, other than an issue concerning the cancellation of a single Metalast® trademark. This was subsequently remanded back to the lower court, again appealed by the opposing party and court proceedings concerning the remaining trademark-cancellation claim concluded and upheld by the Ninth Circuit in May 2024.
The voluminous court record is important because it distinguishes the enforceable settlement restrictions from the competing opposing party historical claims concerning ownership of the Metalast® brand and the prohibited use of the term “formerly Metalast.” However, Semas believes the consequences of the disputed product representations extend well beyond the private litigation. He has raised concerns regarding possible false product identification, representations made by the opposing party in connection with government qualification, and the potential implications for defense procurement fraud and manufacturer specifications.
These concerns may warrant examination by the Department of Justice under applicable federal procurement, Major Fraud Against the United States, False Statements to Federal Officials, False Claims Act, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, and other statutes. No conclusion concerning the federal statutes or criminal liability or procurement fraud should be drawn without an independent investigation and review of the relevant evidence. The central unresolved questions are straightforward: What representations were made to the United States Navy, other DoD military departments and QPL compliant industrial customers? From at least June 10, 2015, to April 16, 2019, were all opposing party’s chemical labels, technical literature and invoices reference as “formally Metalast?” What did the responsible parties do after receiving formal cease and desist notice, together with subpoenas which fully disclosed the settlement restrictions? And what steps, if any, were taken to correct the record?
For Semas, this controversy has always involved more than financial losses or ownership of a registered trademark. It concerns the reputation of the individual who founded the business, assembled its technical team, developed its commercial relationships, and devoted approximately twenty years in establishing Metalast® as a respected name in the industry. Following the takeover, the opposing parties initiated extensive federal litigation against Semas and members of his family, using litigation privilege under the protection of filing complaints and motions with the court. They leveled serious allegations of fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of proprietary information, and other wrongdoing—accusations that Semas has consistently and vigorously denied. After nine years of baseless litigation that was proven to be without merit there was never presented before the court a scintilla of evidence that established Semas had ever done anything improper or in anyway breached his fiduciary duty.
Although presented as allegations in legal pleadings rather than established and proven findings of misconduct, their inclusion in public court records carried devastating consequences for Semas’s personal integrity, professional standing, and the reputation he had spent decades building. He maintains that the litigation became not merely a dispute over commercial rights, but an assault upon his character and that of his family. For him, restoring the historical record and distinguishing unsupported accusations from judicially established facts remains an essential part of achieving justice.
The opposing parties were a husband-and-wife team whose ambitions, Semas believes, extended well beyond acquiring a soon-to-be profitable business. The wife sought to establish and lead her own “woman-owned company”, while also gaining the recognition and prestige associated with the Metalast® brand and its environmentally preferable alternative to toxic hexavalent chromium.
Semas maintains that their objective was not merely to remove him as manager, but they also wanted to crush him and destroy his reputation so without his challenge they could acquire the company's assets. Judging from Press Release’s issued by opposing party, it would appear they wanted to assume the identity, accomplishments, and public recognition of a business they had neither founded nor spent decades developing. Beginning as early as November 2013, the opposing parties would refer to their company as having roots dating back to 1993. The U.S. District Court Judge has gone on the record to inform the opposing party they only acquired MILLC assets and not the business, and therefore do not own the history of MILLC, nor were they ever "formerly Metalast."
The wife's association with environmental advocate Erin Brockovich, including photographs documenting their appearances together, illustrates the public image she sought to cultivate, although the photographs themselves do not establish her underlying intentions. Semas believes the husband-and-wife team's ambitions help explain the extraordinary measures employed to obtain control of MILLC by any means necessary, whether unethical, improper, or even illegal by filing a fabricated document with the USPTO.
Following his removal as manager in April 2013, although the court was told they want to save the business and protect the MILLC Members, the company's assets were acquired through a court-approved receivership sale in November 2013. According to the opposing parties deposition testimony, the sale proceeded without approaching MILLC’s own $4 billion manufacturing partner. The sale also proceeded without public advertising, an independent appraisal of any kind, or a formal business valuation. These facts and other material omissions were not disclosed to the Judge of the Ninth Judicial District Court, raising serious questions about compliance with the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code and the integrity of the court-approved sale process.
The acquisition of MILLC's assets did not, and could not transfer ownership of the Metalast® trademarks, nor could it transfer the history, accomplishments, and reputation established by Semas over two decades. Who prepared the Sale Order for the Judge to approve and sign that improperly listed the Semas owned trademarks as MILLC assets? What was the purpose and intent, knowing the Metalast® trademarks were owned by Semas to list them on such an important legal document?
The Metalast® brand was built through years of substantial investment, scientific innovation, research and development, and relationships with the U.S. Navy, major defense contractors, and manufacturers worldwide. While the opposing party acquired MILLC’s assets, they did not create the technology, establish the brand, or build the reputation upon which its commercial success depended. For Semas, setting the historical record straight and restoring his reputation are equally as important as the financial and legal consequences of the takeover.
Semas strongly disputes allegations he improperly transferred or concealed ownership of the Metalast trademarks. In the Complaint and motions presented to the court, and during trial opposing party counsel repeatedly alleged Semas failed to disclose to the MILLC members that MII owned the trademarks. However, court transcripts confirm the opposing parties legal counsel attempted to prevent exculpatory evidence being introduced at trial. Evidence established that in fifty (50) quarterly Manager reports to the members, over a 10 year period, page 2 fully disclosed the Metalast® trademark was owned by MII.
It would appear that the opposing party used false allegations of mismanagement, running the company into the ground and misappropriation of funds before the court to undermine the credibility of Semas and justify actions that ultimately deprived him of control of the business he founded.
The fact is after a 15-month intrusive and baseless investigation by the SEC, the case against Semas and MII was dropped in August 2010 without fines or penalties of any kind. The forensic audit confirmed that all $90 million of MILLC member proceeds were properly accounted for and Semas had always acted as a proper fiduciary. Evidence presented to the SEC further confirmed he went nearly 7-years without taking a paycheck and lent the company or guaranteed loans of nearly $10 million.
His objective today is to have the documented historical record examined fairly, the relevant court findings understood accurately, and any continuing misrepresentations corrected. The passage of time does not eliminate the importance of determining what occurred, particularly where government procurement, industrial product identity, and customer reliance may be involved.
The truth matters—not only to Semas, but it should also matter to the DoD, defense contractors, aircraft manufacturers, job shops, customers, and other government agencies and branches of the military that relied upon the Metalast® brand name and the QPL, Mil-SPEC and other manufacturer qualifications and approvals associated with it.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —an old proverb
The full history is supported by an extensive collection of court orders, judicial findings, appellate decisions, government qualification records, trademark documents, correspondence, deposition testimony, and other exhibits. Because these materials involve substantial documentation and sensitive allegations, the supporting records are maintained in a password-protected section of this website and can be made available to qualified individuals upon request to the email listed below.
Semas welcomes responsible, independent examination of the documentary record. To request access to the supporting evidence and complete historical documentation, please contact:
David M. Semas
david.semas@gmail.com
Access to the protected materials is provided upon review and authorization.
