Commercial Associations

Updated 29 May 2026

This page has been updated to record the clarification request sent to Clark Hill PLC concerning public statements about Plus Brand Industries Inc., All-Scratch!®, patent protection, published status, PCT-related language and broader AGUA Plus / Plus Brand public claims.

The issue is not whether any patent-related activity exists. The issue is whether public-facing statements accurately distinguish granted patents, published applications, pending applications, PCT filings, trademarks, ownership, claim scope, jurisdiction and enforceability.

Related public-record verification requests have also been issued concerning warrant, restitution, probation / fugitive-status and enforcement-status indicators connected to Chad Eugene Willis and Oakland County Circuit Court case no. 04-197988-FH. Current active-warrant status remains pending direct custodian confirmation; however, unresolved restitution history, long-term absence from the United States, and existing warrant-status indicators remain material due-diligence issues.

Legal-threat correspondence has also been added to this commercial-association record. The relevant issue is not the mere fact that counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter; it is that legal correspondence, professional-service references, sponsor names, patent references and public promotional claims may all operate as credibility signals in commercial due diligence. The correspondence file is preserved as a legal-threat / response / non-response chronology and should be assessed against the underlying public records.

Status: clarification and verification responses pending. This update records action taken and open due-diligence questions; it does not treat unresolved custodian responses as final adjudicated facts.

This page is published as a matter of public record and public interest. It documents public commercial associations and promotional claims connected with Plus Brand Industries Inc., AGUA Plus / AGUA Plus Alkaline, All-Scratch and related principals, including Chad Eugene Willis.

The central issue is not whether every named organisation or individual has acted improperly. The central issue is that Plus Brand / AGUA Plus materials have publicly invoked major retailers, distributors, sports properties, celebrity figures, media outlets, intellectual-property claims, law-firm references and investor-facing narratives to project legitimacy.

Inclusion on this page means that the person, company, platform or organisation has been publicly referenced in relevant materials, claims, filings, media, social posts, legal correspondence, sponsorship references, retailer / distributor statements, IP assertions or investor-facing representations. It does not, without further evidence, mean that the named party knew of, endorsed, verified, participated in or benefited from any disputed conduct.

This section records the commercial due-diligence relevance of legal-threat correspondence issued in relation to the AGUA Plus / Plus Brand public-record archive.

A cease-and-desist letter was received from counsel purporting to act for Plus Brand interests. A substantive response was issued. A later follow-up requested clarification and confirmation concerning the asserted U.S. mail transmission of the original notice and the factual basis for the allegations advanced. As of this update, no substantive correction, supporting evidence, retraction demand supported by primary documents, or follow-through litigation step has been received.

This correspondence is included here because legal threats, law-firm references, IP-counsel references, sponsor names, retailer names, media placements and public credibility claims can all influence commercial counterparties. The existence of a legal threat does not validate the sender's disputed position; it is treated as a record item to be assessed against public filings, official records, preserved communications and source documents.

Classification: legal-threat correspondence / response record / non-response chronology / commercial credibility context. Full correspondence and related delivery records are held in the Restricted Vault and may be supplied to regulators, law enforcement, legal counsel or accredited journalists where appropriate.

Retailer and distributor names are high-value credibility signals. Where a brand publicly references national distribution, major chain access, marketplace presence or fulfilment infrastructure, those references can influence investors, partners, sponsors, vendors and consumers.

Promotional media is relevant because repeated republication can make a paid, company-supplied or weakly verified claim appear more established than it is. This section separates sponsored content, wire distribution, self-authored founder narratives, local broadcast appearances, social amplification and independent reporting.

Professional-service names can carry substantial credibility in investor, retailer, distributor, sponsor and media review. A public reference by a law firm, patent counsel, agency, broker, PR vendor or adviser may be accurate within its narrow scope, while still being reused or expanded by a company in ways that exceed the original professional statement.

This page treats Clark Hill PLC as a commercial-association and due-diligence node, not as an allegation of wrongdoing. The relevant question is whether Plus Brand / AGUA Plus public statements accurately distinguish Clark Hill's actual patent-related work from broader promotional language about global protection, licensing, investor value, distribution, health, safety and commercial scale.

Celebrity names, athlete references, entertainment-industry associations and ambassador-style appearances can create halo effects. Inclusion here does not allege wrongdoing by the named individual.

The questions below are directed to sponsors, retailers, distributors, media outlets, public figures, investors, platforms, counsel, agencies, journalists and regulators assessing public associations with Plus Brand / AGUA Plus / All-Scratch.

1. What due diligence was performed before any sponsorship, promotional appearance, retail listing, distributor relationship, broadcast association or media placement?
2. Was Chad Eugene Willis's criminal, regulatory, civil, commercial and public complaint history reviewed before association?
3. Were any associated parties told about existing public-record allegations, regulator complaints, Ripoff Report materials, investor complaints, repayment disputes or legal-threat correspondence?
4. If legal-threat correspondence was shown or referenced, were recipients also given the substantive response, follow-up clarification request and non-response chronology?
5. Were patent, PCT, All-Scratch, global-protection and licensing claims independently verified by patent counsel or official patent databases?
6. Were Clark Hill or any other professional advisers asked to confirm whether Plus Brand / AGUA Plus public statements accurately reflect the scope of their actual work?
7. Were retailer, KeHE, national distribution, direct fulfilment and marketplace claims independently confirmed with the named parties?
8. Were the Mayweather investment, valuation, minority-shareholder, creative-director and observer-board claims independently confirmed?
9. Were any sponsored-content or press-release items used in investor, retailer, sponsor, distributor or platform-facing materials?
10. Were any public figures, media outlets or partners paid, compensated, supplied product, granted equity, promised future value or otherwise incentivised?
11. What records exist showing the exact scope, date, duration, consideration, status and termination of each claimed association?

The following source list identifies priority pages for screenshot capture, PDF preservation and archive logging. Links may change, be edited or be removed; screenshots should capture the page URL, publication date if visible, access date, headline, author/source, relevant claims and any sponsored-content label.