Lehi-based Purple Mattress received a legal victory in federal court Tuesday as the company continues to defend its product’s purple-colored trademarks.

The U.S. District Court of South Carolina Charleston Division dismissed a complaint filed by American Serleep Inc. seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement to continue selling mattresses containing “plum-colored elements.”

The South Carolina court determined it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Purple.

“This decision underscores the court’s recognition of the jurisdictional limitations in the case brought against Purple,” said Daniel Benjamin, a representative for Shutts & Bowen, the law firm defending Purple in the case.

Serleep filed a complaint against Purple on Jan. 13, alleging Purple falsely notified The Home Depot that Serleep’s products infringed on Purple’s trademark, including a mattress with “plum-colored elements.”

Serleep argued Purple’s trademarks did not have “acquired distinctiveness,” and said the allegations had “the potential to cause significant financial harm to (Serleep) in South Carolina and elsewhere.

Purple, which owns several dozen purple-colored patents for mattresses, pillows, bed frames and cushions, requested a dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds, contending Purple is a Delaware incorporation primarily based in Utah that sells products nationwide.

The Court sided with the defense, ruling, “Even assuming that Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that Purple purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within South Carolina, it has failed to draw a connection between Purple’s contacts with the state and the basis of the suit. As a result, the Court finds that it does not have specific jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and dismisses the case without prejudice.”

Purple’s legal battle over its trademark rights continues in a Florida U.S. District Court, where the company is suing Serleep and an affiliate company, Waykar, seeking injunctive relief and damages to prevent “further unauthorized use of Purple’s intellectual proprietary,” according to Benjamin.

“The trademark infringement lawsuit is ongoing and highlights Purple’s dedication to defending its well-known purple-colored marks, labels and trade dress, which have become synonymous with the company’s innovative and high-quality products,” Benjamin said.