How Finnegan Won the Vagisil-Vagisan Trademark Battle
Partner Douglas "Chip" Rettew says the key was a consumer research survey that showed 90% of men and women recognized the Vagisil mark.
June 07, 2019 at 06:36 PM
4 minute read
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner has helped the maker of Vagisil products win a district court judgment blocking a competitor from registering Vagisan in the United States.
Vagisan is marketed in Europe by Germany's Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. The company persuaded the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark in 2017. The PTO found that the “Vagi-” prefix is strongly suggestive of an intimate feminine care product, and already used by the likes of Vagitone, Vagifresh and Vagicaine. That overcame the commercial strength of Vagisil's mark.
Combe Inc., the maker of Vagisil, responded by hiring Finnegan and suing in the Eastern District of Virginia. The company presented evidence of more than $1 billion in sales, some 90 TV commercials and 100-plus radio ads. “It's been featured in South Park, the Big Bang Theory and, I think the coup de grace for a trademark, it had its own skit on Saturday Night Live,” Finnegan partner Douglas “Chip” Rettew said in an interview this week.
Combe also hired expert Hal Poret to run a consumer survey. It found that 38% of men and women named Vagisil, unprompted, when asked to list women's intimate care products. Ninety percent recognized the brand when it was used in a list.
Wait, they surveyed men, too? “We wanted to show that this mark is famous not just among buyers, but among the whole general public,” Rettew said. Judge T.S. Ellis agreed in a ruling made public this week following a December bench trial. That finding of fame will lend the mark special protections in future cases.
Dr. Wolff, which is represented by Arent Fox, presented Ellis with a list of 66 U.S. products that use “Vagi” in its prefix. Women take special care when making these purchases, partner Ross Panko told Ellis in closing arguments, and they know to focus on the suffix of the marks. “Because of this crowded field, there's no reason why Vagisan can't coexist with Vagisil just like Vagi-Soothe, Vagistat, Vagi-Sitz, Vagicaine and all these others have coexisted with it,” Panko said.
Rettew, who tried the case with Finnegan partner Anna Naydonov, obtained sales data showing that almost all of those other Vagis are tiny internet-only brands. Vagi-Soothe sold only $1,358 of its anti-itch formula in 2018, for example. Vagifresh sold $500 and Vagi-Sitz sold none beyond those purchased for research into the litigation, according to Ellis' findings.
In response to the special care argument, Rettew obtained admissions that many women are embarrassed about buying these products and don't want to be seen with them in a store. “And so grabbing it quickly off the shelves, there's more of a chance that they're gonna make a mistake,” he said.
Ellis ruled that the Vagisil mark is “a famous mark that enjoys substantial commercial strength.” He found that the third-party Vagi marks “are commercially insignificant” and do not materially weaken that strength. Overall, he found that the evidence weighs “heavily in favor of a determination that confusion would likely result if Vagisan were registered.”
So was it awkward litigating a case about women's intimate care?
“It is different than litigating a case involving sporting goods,” Rettew conceded. “But we played that to the strength of our case. That's exactly what we're talking about when we say this is the type of product that people grab and go when they're in a store. And that's why it's something that we have to make sure another company can't use a similar mark for, because there is high likelihood that people will confuse the brand.”
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 AllFatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readFTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
4 minute readHealth Care Giants Sue FTC, Allege Lina Khan Using Loaded Process to Vilify Pharmacy Benefit Managers
3 minute readHospital Succeeds in Denying Vaccine Religious Accommodation Through 'Undue Hardship' Defense
Trending Stories
- 1Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 2People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
- 3How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be a Lawyer First, Foremost and Always,' Says Matthew McLaughlin of Venable
- 4Bar Report - Dec. 23
- 5Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
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