Lippitt O'Keefe, PLLC

08/31/2026

The More You Know:

On Monday, August 24, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Zillow and Redfin, two large online real estate marketplaces, were scheduled to argue over alleged antitrust violations in the Eastern District of Virgina. Instead, on the morning of August 24th the FTC announced a proposed settlement with the Defendants.

On September 30, 2025, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Zillow and Redfin alleging that the Defendants entered into an unlawful agreement in February 2025 whereby Redfin agreed to stop competing for the sale of multifamily rental advertising and to transition its multifamily customers, predominantly property management companies, to Zillow in exchange for $100 million. The Complaint explains that Zillow and Redfin, which operates Rent.com, already exist in a “highly concentrated” market for rental “internet listing service” (“ILS”) advertising. The FTC alleges that Redfin agreed to terminate all of its advertising contracts with managers of multifamily rental properties, to stay out of the market for up to 9 years and to use its network to show only rental listings that are also displayed on Zillow’s sites.

The Complaint alleges that the agreement violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that it will “result in reduced choice, higher prices, and reduced quality for multifamily rental advertising customers and will provide no cognizable procompetitive benefits.” The FTC alleges that diminished competition will harm prospective renters in addition to advertising customers.

On August 24, 2026, the FTC announced that it will file a stipulated order with the court that resolves the litigation. According to the FTC, the proposed order lasts for 10 years, and it requires that the Defendants amend their agreement by, among other things, eliminating any restrictions on Redfin’s ability to sell advertising services.

Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition stated, “This settlement delivers better, quicker, more certain results for both renters and property management companies than we would have been able to achieve after prevailing at trial, including firm and enforceable commitments by Redfin to relaunch its rentals advertising business.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/zillow-redfin-settle-ftc-case-over-rental-listings

The US Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement resolving its antitrust case against Zillow Group Inc. and Rocket Companies Inc.’s Redfin, the agency said.

08/19/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

A group of investors have filed a lawsuit against Selena Gomez, the famous musician and former Disney actress, alleging that Gomez and her mother, Mandy Teefey, defrauded the Plaintiffs out of $1.2 million in investments in a mental health and wellness platform called “Wondermind.”

As explained in the Complaint, Wondermind was launched in 2021. In 2022, at the time of the Company’s Series A offering, the Company merely had a “vision” that it sold to investors. This vision included an editorial publication, a mobile app, an original podcast, and related wellness products. The vision allegedly deceived the Plaintiffs into thinking they would see a return on their investment.

The Complaint alleges that Gomez, Teefey, and Daniella Pierson, the former chief executive of Wondermind, directly induced Plaintiffs to invest by promising that Gomez would have an active role in the Company, that Pierson was an experienced executive who had already secured institutional employer partnerships, and that a “full slate of revenue-generating initiatives” were already underway. However, the Plaintiffs allege, “[t]he partnerships did not exist. The initiatives never materialized. The app was never built. And for three years, while the Company quietly collapsed around them, not one of its founders, officers, or directors said a word to the investors whose money was funding the collapse.”

The Plaintiffs allege that their “most salient consideration” was the representation that Gomez would be actively involved in the Company. The Plaintiffs allegedly invested in Wondermind after being assured that Gomez, who has 404 million followers on Instagram alone, would market the Company to her “pre-existing, substantial, and loyal follower base.” Though not mentioned in the Complaint, Gomez founded Rare Beauty, a cosmetics brand that is worth approximately $2.7 billion and is described as “the fastest-growing celebrity beauty brand on social media.” Gomez’s monumental success with her beauty business may have also contributed to the investor’s expectations.

In August 2025, Forbes published an article about Pierson that accused the Wondermind executive of misrepresenting her business acumen. After the article was published, Teefey informed investors that Pierson had been ousted from the Company in early 2023 after she had misappropriated Company assets to “fund her lavish lifestyle,” including her $60,000 monthly rent for an apartment in New York City. The Plaintiffs were allegedly not given this information until they reached out to Teefey following the publication of the Forbes article.

Shortly after, in September 2025, The Cut published an article about Wondermind that “recounted, in painstaking detail, the significant operational, financial, and management issues at the Company.” For the first time, the Plaintiffs learned that Wondermind “had no plan for its future.” Instead, the Plaintiffs learned that Gomez was disinterested in the Company, Teefey and Pierson had a hostile relationship, and Teefey’s performance was materially altered due to alleged substance abuse issues. The investors allege that once they demanded the return of their investment, they were essentially ghosted by the Defendants.

The Complaint alleges multiple counts of securities fraud as well as breach of contract, recission due to failure to satisfy conditions precedent, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Wondermind’s website currently indicates that Teefey and Gomez are co-founders and the apparent leaders of the Company.

Gomez’s lawyer called the lawsuit “completely meritless, both factually and legally.” Pierson has stated that she “categorically denies the allegations against her and welcomes the opportunity to present concrete documentation and financial records that establish the facts.” Teefey has yet to comment on the lawsuit.

In a new lawsuit, investors say they gave $1.2 million to Wondermind to build out the company’s products and expected Gomez to be involved in marketing.

08/17/2026

Lippitt O’Keefe, PLLC is excited to announce the recent merger of its long-standing client Exotic Automation & Supply (“Exotic” or the “Company”) with Value Added Distributors, LLC (“VAD”). Alongside Varnum LLP, Lippitt O’Keefe attorneys Brian D. O’Keefe and Carey L. Robinson served as legal counsel to Exotic. Amherst Partners, LLC served as the exclusive financial advisor to Exotic in connection with the transaction.

Exotic is a family-owned Michigan-based company that specializes in engineered solutions for motion control and custom molded rubber and plastics. The Company was founded in 1963. In 1972, Exotic received the first distribution agreement with Parker Hannifin, and the Company remains a leading distributor of Parker Hannifin products today. The Company has grown impressively under the leadership of CEO Tom Marino and his son Tommy Marino II.

Following the transaction, Exotic has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of VAD, which is another leading distributor of Parker Hannifin products. The combined company will have an expanded network of ParkerStores, additional product lines and resources, and increased service capabilities.

Lippitt O’Keefe congratulates everyone involved with the new combined entity and looks forward to the Company’s continued success.

08/14/2026

The More You Know:

Regulatory Reporting Rule Repeal!

On August 11, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) effectively repealed its “Reporting Rule” thereby removing the requirement that U.S. companies report beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”).

FinCEN implemented the Rule in September 2022, which became effective in January 2024. The Rule required companies to file BOI reports disclosing the beneficial owners of the company (i.e., those who exercise substantial control over the company or those who own or control at least 25% of the company’s ownership interests). The Rule also required that companies formed after December 31, 2023, disclose the company applicants who formed or registered the company.

The Rule faced legal challenges shortly after its implementation. In March 2024, a federal district court found that the CTA exceeded Congress’s power under the Constitution. However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed stating that the CTA fell within Congress’s commerce power.

Not only has FinCEN effectively revoked Rule, but it has also announced that previously reported information by U.S. persons will be deleted from the BOI database. It should be noted that foreign companies will still be required to report beneficial ownership information regarding foreign individuals.

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent stated, “Today’s action is a victory for common sense and American small businesses … Treasury is eliminating a burdensome reporting requirement for millions of law-abiding business owners without compromising our national security.”

Other lawmakers are not so happy. Senator Elizabeth Warren issued a statement calling the decision “a gift to cartels, criminals, and U.S. adversaries that exploit shell companies to move millions through our financial system.” The final rule that narrows BOI reporting requirements was published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2026.

The Treasury Department on Tuesday officially repealed a requirement for American companies and individuals to report beneficial ownership information to its Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, o…

07/13/2026

The More You Know:

The Supreme Court of the United States finished its 2025-2026 term on June 30, 2026, after releasing a flurry of decisions. Below we briefly summarize some of the most significant final decisions that the Court handed down.

In West Virginia v B.P.J., the Court held that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow schools to maintain separate men’s and women’s sports teams defined by biological s*x. The decision concerned two consolidated cases, both of which were brought by transgender girls who wished to join girls’ sports teams at their respective schools. However, West Virginia and Idaho, the two states where the plaintiffs are from, passed laws prohibiting biological males from playing on female sports teams. The decision explicitly stated that it does not apply to biological females who wish to join male sports teams.

The Court addressed birthright citizenship in Trump v Barbara holding that children born on United States soil to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and, as such, are citizens under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s decision was grounded in the historical context surrounding the Clause, from English common law to the Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott. The case was brought after President Trump issued an executive order in January 2025 that sought to eradicate birthright citizenship. Following the Court’s decision, Trump has stated he plans on asking the Court to rehear the case, which is an extraordinary form of relief that the Court has not granted since 1965. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion and was joined by Justice Barrett and the Court’s three liberal justices.

At issue in Watson v Republican National Committee was whether states are allowed to count absentee ballots that are mailed by election day but received afterward. In 2024, the Republican National Committee sued the Mississippi secretary of state arguing that federal election-day statutes prevent the State from counting absentee ballots that are received after election day. The Court disagreed with this argument finding that nothing in the federal statutes requires ballots to be received by election day. In the opinion authored by Justice Barrett, the Court explains that “election” has always referred to the “electorate’s choice of candidate.” The Court distinguished the receipt of votes from the act of voting stating that the “electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.”

Chatrie v United States is a case that will impact future Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Here, the Court held 6-3 that police conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment when they acquired a defendant’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. The case involved the use of a “geofence warrant,” which police use to compel technology companies (here it was Google) to hand over any data regarding cell phones in a given virtual perimeter around a crime scene. The Court stated, “It does not matter if the time period scrutinized was only two hours. Nor does it matter that the materials obtained were handed over by a third-party tech company.” The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for a determination on whether the search was reasonable given the warrant that was issued.

In Trump v Slaughter, the Court overruled its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor and held that the Federal Trade Commission’s for-cause removal provision is contrary to the separation of powers. The case came to the Supreme Court after Trump fired the FTC’s two democratic Commissioners without cause in January 2025. The Court explained, “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.” The decision marks a step towards a unitary executive, and it has been both widely applauded and widely criticized.

Finally, in Trump v Cook, a case that is somewhat related to Slaughter, the Court held that Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System failed because Cook was not given the procedural removal protections that she was entitled to. The opinion is not exactly clear, but it appears that Federal Reserve’s for-cause removal provision will stand even in the wake of Slaughter due to the importance of a wholly independent central bank.

The Court’s 2026-2027 term will begin on October 5, 2026. You can access the Court's opinions at https://www.supremecourt.gov/.

06/26/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

Terrion Arnold, a cornerback for the Detroit Lions, is in hot water for his alleged role in an armed robbery and kidnapping in Florida.

On June 24, 2026, Arnold was arrested in Hillsborough County, Florida. According to the State’s Motion for Pretrial Detention, Arnold and his friends, six of whom are co-defendants in the case, stayed at an Airbnb in Largo, Florida on January 30, 2026. Two of the alleged victims were also present at the Airbnb that night. The following day, Arnold and his friends discovered that they were missing approximately $250,000 in personal property, including Rolex watches, Louis Vuitton merchandise, and $100,000 in cash.

The State alleges that Arnold and his co-defendants later conspired to lure the victims, whom they believed stole the property, to the Tampa home of two female co-defendants. Once the victims arrived, two male co-defendants allegedly beat the victims using fi****ms while one of the female co-defendants streamed the incident to Arnold who was on his way to the home from Tallahassee. Once Arnold arrived, the State alleges that he instructed his other co-defendants to enter the home and continue the assault. The co-defendants allegedly interrogated the victims and stole the victims’ personal property before they were released.

The two female co-defendants, both of whom pleaded guilty, implicated Arnold. They testified that Arnold devised the original plan to lure the victims to the apartment and he drove the getaway car following the alleged assault. Tampa police have alleged that Arnold was the “primary conspirator.”

Arnold, who was the Lion’s first round pick in the 2024 draft (hosted in Detroit), has been charged with three counts of kidnapping, three counts of armed robbery, one count of conspiracy to kidnap, and one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The State has requested that the court deny bond and order pre-trial detention. All six of Arnold’s co-defendants have been denied bond. The hearing is scheduled for Monday, June 29th.

State Attorney Suzy Lopez stated, “No one has the right to take the law into their own hands. A dispute over missing property does not justify kidnapping, violence or retaliation.” Denise White, the CEO of EAG Sports and Entertainment Agency, issued a statement on behalf of Arnold asserting that he “categorically denies any involvement in the matters underlying the allegations made against him and maintains his innocence.”

The Lions explained, “We are aware of the legal situation regarding Terrion Arnold. We will not comment at this time out of respect for the ongoing legal process.” The Lions' first preseason game is August 13th against the Cincinnati Bengals.

NFL player Terrion Arnold of the Detroit Lions was charged Thursday in Florida with leading a plot to detain and pistol-whip three people whom he believed had stolen luxury goods and $100,000 in cash from him.

06/20/2026

The More You Know:

On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous opinion in United States v Hemani that narrows a federal statute intended to restrict who can legally possess a firearm.

In 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) searched Ali Hemani’s family home on suspicion of “terrorism-related activities.” The FBI did not find any evidence to support the reason for its search but during the process Hemani surrendered a gun he kept in the house and pointed agents to some ma*****na on the property. Hemani later told agents that he used ma*****na “about every other day.” Six months later, the government indicted Hemani for knowingly possessing a gun while being an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance in violation of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”). Hemani moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that the prosecution violated his Second Amendment rights.

The Act prohibits various categories of people from possessing fi****ms. These categories, codified in USC §922(g)(3), include felons, noncitizens, anyone who has been committed to a mental institution, and “any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” among others. Hemani is only the second Second Amendment case that the Court has decided since its 2022 landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v Bruen.

The Court applied the test it established in Bruen by asking whether the Amendment’s terms cover the conduct in question, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the challenger’s conduct is protected by the Constitution. To rebut this, the government must show that its actions are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” comparing specifically the purpose and operation of the modern regulation with any “well-established historical analogue.”

The government relied on historical “habitual drunkard” laws, but the Court swiftly shot this argument down concluding that such laws “targeted different kinds of people, did so for different purposes, and operated in different ways.” The Court found that the past laws targeted habitual drunkards “because their drinking rendered them practically incapacitated and incapable of managing their affairs.” Furthermore, the Court found that these historical laws usually provided some form of process before an individual lost any of his liberties. By contrast, the Court states, §922(g)(3) “automatically disarms anyone who regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance for anything other than its prescribed purpose” without any pre-deprivation process and without any specialized showing that the person is "regularly incapacitated, incapable of conducting his affairs, or a threat to himself or others.”

The Opinion also rejected the government’s argument that §922(g)(3) disarms a category of people who are “violent” and “unusually dangerous.” The Court notes that the GCA definition of “controlled substance” depends on the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), which was adopted to protect “the health and general welfare of the American people.” The drug schedules adopted by the CSA have “little or nothing” to do with a substance’s potential to induce violence. Before the Court heard oral argument in Hemani, the government reclassified some ma*****na products as Schedule III rather than Schedule I. Additionally, most states have legalized ma*****na to some extent. According to the Court, “All of which leaves it awkwardly positioned to suggest that the millions of Americans who now regularly use ma*****na are categorically and unusually dangerous.”

The Court ended its Opinion by stating that it is a “narrow” decision and does not address “whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s use of ma*****na (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others.” The Court merely found that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to Hemani.

A variety of organizations have lauded the decision including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, and the Drug Policy Alliance.

The Court is expected to begin its summer recess at the end of June. However, the Justices still have seventeen cases to decide before then, which indicates that a number of important decisions will be published in the next two weeks.

The justices cast a blow against a federal law that bars users of illegal drugs from possessing fi****ms. President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden was convicted under the same law.

06/05/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

Patagonia, a world-famous outdoor apparel brand known for its commitment to environmentalism, has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Wyn Wiley, a drag queen who goes by the stage name Pattie Gonia.

Pattie Gonia, who has nearly two million followers on Instagram alone, self describes as a drag queen, climate activist, and community organizer. She adopted her stage name in 2018. On January 21, 2026, Patagonia filed a Complaint against the internet personality alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition. The introduction of the Complaint explains “Patagonia supports advocacy and activism that promote the environment and inclusion in the outdoors, central to Pattie Gonia’s ostensible mission.”

The Complaint further explains that the parties had previously reached an agreement about how Pattie Gonia’s “advocacy work might continue in a way that would not interfere with Patagonia’s brand.” According to the Complaint, in 2022 Pattie Gonia agreed to “respect Patagonia’s trademark rights” and to refrain from selling Pattie Gonia-branded products. However, the working relationship between the parties began to deteriorate when Pattie Gonia filed a trademark application shortly after the drag queen began selling branded merchandise in late 2024. Pattie Gonia’s application seeks to register her stage name as the source of a wide range of products and services including apparel and environmental advocacy.

Patagonia alleges that Pattie Gonia still sells Pattie Gonia-branded content and continues to use and display Patagonia’s logo, despite attempts to ameliorate the situation outside of litigation. The filing contains examples of consumer confusion, including one comment on Pattie Gonia’s social media profile that states “Love you patagonia, you’re amazing. Thank you for protecting our parks.”

Patagonia has asked that the Court issue an injunction against Pattie Gonia’s further use of the Pattie Gonia trademark, as well as nominal damages in the amount of $1.00, along with attorneys’ fees, which are rarely granted in the United States.

The lawsuit has sparked fierce debate online with some spectators characterizing the legal dispute as a David vs Goliath situation while others argue that it is simply trademark law functioning exactly as intended. Pattie Gonia has stated on social media “This is not a brand conflict. This is a corporation trying to erase an activist. This is how corporations bully individuals who cannot match their resources.”

Patagonia issued a statement explaining “This matter is not about seeking financial gain, nor is it about challenging anyone’s identity or right to advocacy, protest, or creative expression. The last thing we wanted was a legal fight with someone who shares our values, but we must protect our business and employees.”

The climate activist drag queen is accusing Patagonia of going against its "core mission."

05/20/2026

The More You Know:

On May 12, 2026, Zillow, an online real estate marketplace, filed a lawsuit against Compass, one of the largest residential real estate brokerages. This new lawsuit adds to a preexisting legal showdown between the two companies and to the overall legal drama that has dominated the real estate industry for the past few years.

Back in June 2025, Compass sued Zillow alleging that the virtual marketplace violated antitrust laws by enacting a policy that required publicly marketed listings to be published on the platform within one business day. The policy, which was modeled after the National Association of Realtor’s Clear Cooperation Policy, was intended to deter private, “pocket listings” (for more information on the Compass Complaint, see https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DuqacnEhB/).

In February 2026, the Court denied Compass’s request for a preliminary injunction after it found that the brokerage had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its antitrust claims. On March 20, 2026, Compass voluntarily dismissed the Complaint shortly after Zillow announced a new feature “Zillow Preview,” which allows brokerages to pre-market listings before they hit the active market.

Now, Zillow alleges that Compass and Midwest Real Estate Data LLC (“MRED”), an MLS that covers the Chicago area, have harmed competition by hiding real estate listings behind a “velvet rope” in a private listing network. The Complaint goes on to allege that the Defendants conspired to cut off Zillow’s access to “all of the real estate listings controlled by MRED and Compass in Chicagoland … in a naked effort to coerce pro-transparency competitors to abandon their business models.”

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a horizontal group boycott to restrain trade. Zillow also alleges that MRED has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully maintaining and abusing its monopoly power in the Chicago area.

On May 18, 2026, Zillow filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction asking that the Court prevent MRED from terminating the Chicago listing data while the case proceeds. However, on May 20, 2026, MRED announced that it has suspended Zillow’s access to its data feeds stating that Zillow removed nine listings that were allegedly marketed lawfully under its rules. Zillow issued a statement declaring “Chicagoland home buyers and sellers have far worse access to the housing market than they had yesterday, because their local MLS decided one megabrokerage’s profits mattered more than their ability to achieve the American Dream.”

https://www.housingwire.com/articles/mred-suspends-zillow-feed/

Zillow lost licensed MRED listing data for Zillow and Trulia, about 43,000 active listings, as injunction and arbitration motions proceed.

05/06/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

Buc-ee’s is once again suing a competing convenience store chain for alleged trademark infringement.

On May 1, 2026, Buc-ee’s filed a lawsuit against Teddy’s Market, a convenience store chain that currently operates exclusively in Georgia. At this time, Teddy’s only has two stores, both of which are north of Atlanta, with plans to open a third in Decatur. Teddy’s logo features a light brown cartoon bear dressed in a blue hoodie and blue baseball cap.

The Complaint alleges that Teddy’s has created an “Infringing Brand Identity” by pairing its name with “an anthropomorphic animal mascot depicted through a recurring logo, in-store renderings, and even a store-entrance statue … in connection with their convenience store and retail services.” Buc-ee’s further characterizes Teddy’s bear as a “smiling animal that closely resembles a beaver, wearing a hat, with white specular highlights on its eyes, with a solid black nose with a single white specular highlight, showing a glimpse of a red/pink tongue, and with lighter coloration around its mouth.”

The Complaint further alleges that the likelihood of consumer confusion, a key element of a claim for trademark infringement, “is further exacerbated by the circumstances in which the Teddy’s logo is encountered by consumers.” Buc-ee’s argues that most consumers who encounter the allegedly infringing logo will be drivers who can only briefly glance at the logo from a distance, which means consumers cannot “meaningfully assess” whether Teddy’s is associated with Buc-ee’s until they are actually at the store – “at which point it would be highly unlikely for consumers to change their purchasing decisions or seek out a different source for the relevant services.”

In addition to federal and state claims of trademark infringement, Buc-ee’s alleges unfair competition, unjust enrichment, trademark dilution, and violation of the Georgia Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Buc-ee’s filed a similar infringement lawsuit against another convenience store chain called Mickey’s in February 2026 (for more on this see https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1KNWkMSmKM/). On April 22, 2026, Mickey’s filed an Answer that opens with “[t]his case asks a simple question: can a large national chain that is expanding into Ohio use meritless trademark litigation as a tool to force out a local business that has operated in Ohio for decades?” Mickey’s asserted a counterclaim against Buc-ee’s for unfair competition based on malicious litigation, or alternatively, trademark infringement.

What do you think? Is the litigation initiated by Buc-ee’s a valiant effort to protect its intellectual property or is it a form of bullying under the guise of the law that is intended to suppress competition?

https://www.ajc.com/news/2026/05/buc-ees-sues-georgia-competitor-with-confusingly-similar-brand/

In a fight over cartoon animal mascots, Texas-based convenience store chain Buc-ee's is suing Georgia competitor Teddy's Market for trademark infringement.