The METALAST® controversy involves several companies, but most significantly concerns the alleged conduct of one of the world’s largest chemical corporations whose market capitalization exceeds $45 billion. According to METALAST® founder David M. Semas (Semas) its business unit continued using the registered METALAST® name despite a September 3, 2015, cease-and-desist letter and subsequent subpoenas, after receiving notice of a federal court-approved settlement agreement prohibiting the settling parties’ continued use of the name. Semas maintains the unlawful use continued for more than a decade without the corporation ever informing or notifying its customers, the Department of Defense, military contractors, and other affected parties that it lacked authorization from the trademark owner to use the METALAST® name.
The METALAST® story began in 1993 when entrepreneur Semas founded a metal-finishing technology enterprise that would eventually become recognized throughout the DoD, aerospace, defense, automotive, electronics, and industrial manufacturing sectors. Metalast International, Inc. (MII), incorporated in 1994, served as the management company for Metalast International, LLC (MILLC), the operating business established that same year that became operational in July 1996. Over nearly two decades, Semas and his team of scientists, engineers, and technical specialists invested tens of millions of dollars developing environmentally preferable specialty chemicals, corrosion-control products, proprietary manufacturing processes, and computerized metal-finishing systems. The company constructed a 17,000-square-foot technology center in Minden, Nevada, 45 miles south of Reno and 15 miles east of South Shore Lake Tahoe housing research laboratories, technical facilities, and training classrooms.
An important milestone occurred in 2004 when MILLC, under the management of Semas and MII, entered into a North American licensing relationship with the United States Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) to commercialize the Navy's environmentally friendly Trivalent Chromium Process (TCP). The resulting METALAST® TCP-HF technology offered an alternative to traditional toxic hexavalent chromium (Chrome 6) conversion coatings business made famous in the movie “Erin Brokovich” used extensively in military aircraft, aerospace components, industrial manufacturing and most products and components made of aluminum.
Through extensive research, testing, product qualification, and an innovative nationwide technical mobile marketing education campaign, METALAST® gained industry-wide recognition producing a vast number job shops approvals and manufacturer specifications, and wide-spread commercial acceptance. Its achievements resulted in acceptance and approvals with all military branches of government and over 80 manufacturer specifications, approvals and relationships with numerous industrial distributors. Meny METALAST® TCP-HF specifications were sole source, meaning the processor was required to use that specific chemical.
In 2006, Semas brought one of the world's largest chemical corporations into this emerging market by arranging a manufacturing and distribution sublicense for the Navy-licensed METALAST® TCP-HF chemical technology. This relationship provided an important foundation for the product's wider commercialization.
By 2013, METALAST® represented approximately twenty years of technological development, substantial investment, government relationships, industrial qualifications, and accumulated commercial goodwill.
The distinction that would become central to the ensuing controversy was that the METALAST® trademarks were independently owned by Semas and MII—not by MILLC, the operating company.
In 2009, MILLC entered into a loan and security agreement with husband and wife investors who would later become the “opposing parties” in extensive lengthy litigation before five judicial courts, one Nevada State Court and four Federal Courts. Historical documents confirm the original security agreement did not include the independently owned METALAST® trademarks as collateral. That distinction would become particularly important four years later, when documents filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) confirmed the opposing parties falsely identified those trademarks as security for the earlier loan.
During the same period, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an unwarranted investigation involving Semas and MII. Following fifteen months of examination, the SEC closed its investigation in August 2010 without imposing fines, penalties, or enforcement action against either party. According to the forensic accounting findings approximately $90 million in MILLC member investment proceeds was accounted for, and no misappropriation by Semas was identified.
Semas maintains that allegations of financial misconduct nevertheless continued to circulate and were subsequently used to undermine his credibility among investors and in litigation.
By early 2013, MILLC had developed a substantial portfolio of more than 120 specialty chemical formulations, established customer relationships, industry specifications, and a major manufacturing and distribution partnership. Although the company had not yet achieved sustained profitability, Semas believed it was approaching financial self-sufficiency within the next two years.
During negotiations with the opposing parties, discussions centered on a proposed additional $3 million equity investment. Semas maintains that he relied upon those representations and temporarily suspended his customary efforts to secure alternative financing.
In the course of those discussions, he acknowledged that MILLC faced an immediate payroll shortfall. According to Semas, that disclosure was subsequently used by the opposing parties to seek an emergency court proceeding, accelerate their secured loan, and obtain his removal as manager. In April 2013, a Nevada State Court appointed a receiver to assume control of MILLC.
Semas contends that the promised investment negotiations were used to obtain the financial admission necessary to initiate the receivership. He further maintains that documents subsequently obtained through litigation indicated the opposing parties had consulted attorneys and considered strategies for removing him months before the emergency proceeding.
The opposing parties characterized their actions as necessary to protect the company and its investors, although the results prove otherwise. Semas disputes that explanation and describes the sequence of events as a coordinated takeover of the business he had spent nearly twenty years developing.
One of the most consequential events occurred on June 20, 2013, when an attorney representing the opposing parties submitted documents to the USPTO seeking to transfer METALAST® trademarks to an affiliated company. The filing included a purported Exhibit B identifying seven METALAST® trademarks as collateral under the 2009 loan agreement. However, the exhibit itself was dated June 17, 2013, and reportedly included a trademark dating from 2012—several years after the original security agreement.
Semas maintains that these chronological inconsistencies demonstrate that the exhibit could not have been part of the original 2009 loan documents. He alleges that the later-prepared exhibit was improperly presented as evidence of security interests that had never existed. The filing also identified MILLC as the purported assignor, although MILLC never owned the trademarks and only possessed a right of use. license. In November 2013, the opposing parties acquired MILLC's operating assets through a Nevada court-approved receivership sale. The proposed sale order improperly included the METALAST® trademarks among the listed assets.
The acquisition of MILLC’s operating assets did not transfer ownership of the METALAST® trademarks. Those trademarks remained owned by Semas, whose ownership had been recorded with the USPTO since 1996 and was subsequently confirmed and upheld by U.S. District Court of Reno, Nevada (District Court) and the United States Court of Appeals the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) rulings. The sale of the MILLC assets included the company's chemical formulations, technologies, equipment, and other operating assets. However, despite the longstanding USPTO registrations establishing ownership of the METALAST® trademarks by Semas and Metalast, Inc. (MII), the opposing party continued to challenge those ownership rights through litigation and other legal proceedings.
In June 2014, the USPTO did not approve the attempted trademark assignment, or hijacking of the brand. The opposing parties subsequently pursued additional litigation over the trademark ownership issue and filed lawsuit against Semas in the United States Bankruptcy Court (Bankruptcy Court). Semas also questions the circumstances of the receivership sale, including the absence of a public marketing process, independent valuation, and solicitation of the company's major manufacturing partner. These remain his allegations concerning the sale process rather than independently established findings of fraud.
In July 2014, the successor company's principals, or opposing parties initiated federal litigation in the Bankruptcy Court alleging that Semas had improperly transferred the METALAST® trademarks. Semas denied those false allegations, maintaining that the historical trademark records demonstrated ownership by himself and MII independently of MILLC. Following litigation and Bankruptcy Court court-supervised mediation, the parties reached a binding settlement agreement on January 27, 2015.
Within weeks, counsel for the opposing parties attempted to withdraw from the agreement, arguing that their clients had not fully understood its terms. At a February 19, 2015, court conference, as confirmed by a telephonic transcript the mediation judge rejected that position and confirmed that the settlement accurately reflected the agreement reached by the parties. The final terms and conditions of the settlement agreement were approved by the presiding federal Bankruptcy Court judge on March 10, 2015.
Its central requirement of the Bankruptcy Court was that the successor company and the opposing parties were absolutely bound by the settlement agreement and were to cease using the METALAST® trademark, name, and brand in commerce, in any fashion or manner whatsoever, after the 90-day transition period ending June 10, 2015.
The settlement was intended to resolve the trademark controversy and establish a clear separation between the successor company's acquired operating assets and the independently Semas owned METALAST® brand. However, on June 3, 2015, just seven days before the settlement deadline, the opposing parties initiated additional federal litigation against Semas and members of his family in the District Court. Semas maintains that this litigation interfered with his ability to license, sell, or otherwise obtain the economic benefits of his trademarks and prolonged a controversy that the settlement had been intended to resolve.
A separate and potentially more consequential issue arose on August 21, 2015. Despite the settlement restrictions that had taken effect on June 10th, NAVAIR approved a product designation identifying the successor company's TCP-HF chemical as “[successor company] TCP-HF (formerly METALAST®).” Semas maintains that the successor company failed to disclose to NAVAIR the existence and terms of the federal court-approved settlement prohibiting its continued commercial use of the METALAST® name.
This distinction was significant because the Navy's Qualified Products List (QPL) and related qualification records would have required at least two years of retesting. This would’ve allowed their competitors access to their customers. The prestigious QPL certification is relied upon by military procurement authorities, aerospace manufacturers, defense contractors, and metal-finishing facilities to identify products approved under applicable specifications.
Semas contends that describing the successor company's chemical as “formerly METALAST®” created the misleading impression that the successor company had lawfully succeeded to the original METALAST® brand, trademark rights, and associated commercial identity. He further believes that the designation enabled the successor company and its manufacturing and distribution partners to retain the commercial and financial benefits of previously established product qualifications without undergoing the potentially lengthy and expensive process associated with qualifying a newly identified product.
Whether the designation affected particular procurement decisions, and whether the relevant representations met the legal requirements for federal procurement fraud, are matters requiring independent examination.
The central concern is that a government QPL product qualification designation incorporated a trademark that the successor was never ("formerly Metalast") and the opposing parties and their company had agreed to stop using more than four months earlier.
The global chemical corporation's involvement in the controversy was separate from the disputed events surrounding the 2009 loan, 2013 receivership, and acquisition of MILLC's assets. Its manufacturing and distribution relationship had originally been established through Semas in 2006. However, following the August 21, 2015, NAVAIR product designation, its subsequent conduct became an independent source of concern.
On September 3, 2015, legal counsel acting for Semas issued a formal cease-and-desist letter to senior executives of the global chemical corporation, advising them of the unlawful trademark use and demanding that it cease. Additional document demands and subpoenas followed during 2015 and 2016, all of which were ignored and never responded to. Semas maintains that the corporation continued using the disputed “formerly METALAST®” designation despite receiving formal notice of the settlement restrictions and his trademark ownership claims.
This alleged conduct raises questions concerning product identification, trademark rights, representations to customers, and the accuracy of information relied upon within the military and aerospace supply chains. According to a Navy qualification letter issued nearly 4 years later, the Navy's QPL qualification records continued to identify the product using the “formerly METALAST®” wording until a product-name change removing the "formerly METALAST®" reference was reflected in records dated April 17, 2019.
Although that designation was subsequently removed, Semas maintains that the earlier representations may have continued to influence customer understanding, purchasing records, manufacturer specifications, and perceptions of the product's historical identity. Removal of the unauthorized wording from the government qualification records did not necessarily notify customers that the earlier identification was contested.
Meanwhile, the opposing parties' baseless litigation against Semas and members of his family continued through multiple federal court proceedings. In 2019, claims against his children were resolved through defense summary judgments and dismissals.
In February 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued findings and conclusions in favor of Semas addressing the federal settlement agreement, the parties' contractual obligations, and the continued use of the METALAST® name. The District Court ruled in favor of Semas on the breach of contract establishing trademark ownership and entered relief restricting the opposing parties' unauthorized use of the trademark. In June 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the principal rulings, while remanding a remaining issue involving the attempted cancellation of one METALAST® trademark. Further court proceedings addressed whether the opposing party had standing to pursue that cancellation claim.
In 2023, the District Court resolved the remaining standing issue, and in May 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the resulting judgment, concluding the litigation commonly referred to by the parties as the “294 case.” For Semas, these decisions represented the culmination of nearly a decade of litigation involving the settlement, trademark rights, and claims directed against him and his family.
The rulings also reinforced the importance of distinguishing between the assets acquired from MILLC and the independently owned METALAST® trademarks and the unlawful use of the METALAST® brand in commerce.
The conclusion of the private trademark litigation did not yet resolve the broader federal statutes and possible civil enforcement action violations concerning false representations made to NAVAIR and DoD government procurement authorities, defense contractors, process auditors and industrial customers.
In December 2024, Semas submitted a formal complaint to the Office of the Naval Inspector General, presenting allegations and supporting documentation concerning the disputed product designation, government qualification records, and potential federal procurement implications. The formal whistleblower submission raised questions about whether NAVAIR had been provided the material facts concerning the 2015 settlement before approving the “formerly METALAST®” designation, and whether affected defense contractors and customers and government authorities were subsequently informed of the dispute.
The Naval Inspector General process resulted in further referral or consideration within government channels, including matters brought to the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice. The existence, present scope, and status of any DOJ investigation have not been publicly confirmed in the materials presented here. Accordingly, no conclusion should be drawn concerning criminal wrongdoing, procurement fraud, or the ultimate disposition of the allegations.
Semas maintains that the documentary record warrants independent journalistic investigation because the potential consequences extend beyond private trademark rights to the integrity of government qualification records, product identification, procurement representations, and customer reliance. It involves concealing material facts for more than a decade from the DoD, military and defense supply chain, aircraft, and aerospace manufacturers and all other customers of the involved parties and the industry itself.
More than three decades after METALAST® was founded, and more than a decade after the contested acquisition of MILLC's assets, the underlying questions remain significant. Semas built the METALAST® enterprise beginning in 1993, assembled its technical team, developed its chemical technologies, secured its Navy licensing relationship, established a major international manufacturing partnership, and invested nearly twenty years in earning the METALAST® brand's commercial reputation.
The successor company acquired MILLC's operating assets in 2013. Historical facts confirm MILLC never owned the trademarks, and the opposing party could never have acquired the trademarks as falsely alleged for many years. It never acquired the independently owned METALAST® trademarks. The parties subsequently entered into a federal court-approved settlement prohibiting continued use of the METALAST® name after June 10, 2015. Nevertheless, a product designation incorporating “formerly METALAST®” appeared in Navy qualification records beginning in August 2015 and remained there until at least April 2019.
Formal notice was provided and the unlawful use of the brand was served on executives of the global chemical corporation by a certified cease and desist letter in September 2015, yet Semas maintains that the unauthorized commercial representations continued. Despite repeated attempts to explore a negotiated resolution, including a final outreach in March 2025, the controversy remained unresolved.The essential questions are straightforward:
Were NAVAIR and other government authorities fully informed of the federal settlement restrictions before approving the disputed product designation? Were defense contractors, manufacturers, metal finishers, and other customers provided accurate information concerning the ownership and historical identity of the METALAST® brand? Did any knowingly misleading representations materially affect federal procurement or purchasing decisions? Were adequate steps taken to correct the historical record after the disputed designation was removed from government qualification records?
These questions warrant careful examination of the documentary evidence, applicable federal law, and the representations made by the parties involved. The passage of time does not erase the historical record. Nor does a change in corporate ownership eliminate the importance of accurate government qualification records, truthful product identification, and accountability.
For Semas, the objective remains to establish an accurate account of what occurred, protect the history of the company he founded, and ensure that government agencies, defense contractors, manufacturers, and customers have access to the material facts.
The supporting evidence—including court orders, appellate decisions, trademark records, government qualification documents, correspondence, deposition testimony, and other exhibits—is maintained separately and can be made available to qualified reviewers upon request.
David M. Semas
Founder, METALAST®
Connect with David M. Semas on LinkedIn
