Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope® (OBE) has commented on the dismissal of a lawsuit it filed earlier this year in the Northern District of Texas against BNP Media II, publisher of the magazine “Building Envelope.”

According to Ted Hathaway, CEO of Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope®, “The U.S. District Court in Dallas, Texas recently dismissed a civil case brought by Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope® against BNP Media for alleged trademark infringement. No pending litigation remains between the two organizations. As a result of the settlement of this lawsuit, BNP Media has agreed to immediately cease publication of Building Envelope. The parties are confident that the stipulations agreed to in the settlement agreement conclude the disputes which were part of the now settled lawsuit.”

The complaint, filed in May, had alleged trade name and trademark infringement and unfair competition for BNP’s use of the term “Building Envelope,” according to court documents. Allegations also include BNP’s use of a similar color scheme and marketing brand that had been established by OBE, in addition to other claims.

Tuesday, September 8, OBE filed a voluntary dismissal of the case prior to the deadline for BNP to file either an answer or a motion for summary judgement. In the notice, OBE claims the sides “have agreed upon a compromise and settlement of all claims and disputes.”

The out-of-court settlement isn’t a surprise, as BNP motioned for and was granted three deadline extensions in consecutive months as the sides continued ongoing talks to resolve the case.

In fact, in the first motion in June, BNP asserted that it had already begun discussions with OBE before the case officially made it to court.

The motion reads, in part, that prior to the suit being filed, “BNP and Plaintiff had begun discussions seeking to resolve this dispute without the need for court intervention. . . . BNP had already advised Plaintiff that, in the interest of being cooperative, it had unilaterally taken steps to change the color scheme associated with its marks to yet further distinguish them.”

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.