Dueling Lawsuits in 'Wellness' Trademark
Peak Wellness Nutrition and Peal Wellness Biopharma, two distributors of dietary and nutritional supplements, file lawsuits against each other over similar trademarks.
November 17, 2017 at 04:03 PM
3 minute read
Two competing dietary supplement companies have filed dueling trademark infringement lawsuits against each other in Connecticut and Florida.
Two months after an attorney for the Greenwich-based Peak Wellness Biopharma put Florida-based Peak Wellness Nutrition on notice that it intended to sue if PWN did not cease using its mark, PWN filed its own lawsuit in Florida in response looking to undercut PWB's trademark.
In its Nov. 9 lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, PWN seeks declaratory judgment that its mark does not infringe PWB's.
PWN claims PWB abandoned its mark in 2011 and did not use it again until 2016. PWN also claims its Connecticut competitor mislead the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in October 2016 when it filed a declaration of incontestability.
“When PWB submitted the Section 15 affidavit, its statement that PWB had continuously used the Peak Wellness Biopharma mark in commerce for five consecutive years after the (October 2010) date of registration was false, and PWB knew its declaration was false,” according to the lawsuit.
PWB's abandonment of the mark in 2011 arose from assigning all rights to a third party for a dietary or nutritional product promoted by PWB under the mark MYO-T12, according to the Florida lawsuit.
PWN claims it began using the Peak Wellness Nutrition mark in 2013, two years after PWB abandoned its mark. PWN claims that means its rights “pre-date any valid rights PWB may have in the Peak Wellness Biopharma mark.”
In a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in New Haven, PWB accuses PWN of trademark infringement, unfair competition and violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The Connecticut lawsuit claims PWN is using the infringing mark to promote the sale of its dietary supplements after receiving complaints from people who believed they were purchasing PWB's supplements.
“The plaintiff regularly receives complaints from consumers who believe that they purchased products from the plaintiff and who claim the defendant charged them money for dietary supplements, but failed to deliver such supplements or refund money for such supplements,” the Connecticut lawsuit states.
The PWB lawsuit seeks a ruling that it owns all rights, titles and interest to its marks. It also seeks to enjoin PWN from continuing to use the infringing mark, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorney fees.
PWB's attorney, Jonathan Shapiro of Shapiro Law Offices in Middletown, said Thursday: “We are working toward a resolution, whether that will happen or not I do not know. My client has a trademark he values and he is seeking to protect that.” He did not elaborate.
PWN is represented by Irene Motles, of Maynard, Cooper & Gale in Birmingham, Alabama. Motles declined to comment Thursday.
PWB also owns rehabilitative and treatment centers in Greenwich, Connecticut, and Beverly Hills, California, whose clientele includes celebrities and professional athletes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readPlaintiffs Seek to Avoid Jurisdiction Fight in IVF Case, Challenge CooperSurgical in Connecticut
4 minute readPike Fuels Agrees to Pay $2 Million Settlement to Resolve Alleged New Haven Environmental Violations
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250