Dynamic Sports Nutrition has filed suit against Vital Pharmaceuticals, alleging consumers may confuse a new medication with DSN's patented dietary and nutritional supplement.
DSN alleges it developed CLEN, a supplement. Since then, Vital distributed a new dietary and nutritional product named Liquid Clen, according to the complaint filed Sept. 12 in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas.
"By using a name and mark that is confusingly similar to DSN's the trademark CLEN in association with identical goods, the defendant is infringing upon DSN's trademark rights," the suit states. "Given the identical or substantially similar nature of defendant's use of the term 'Liquid Clen' to sell identical goods to the same market using the same marketing channel, there is a substantial likelihood that consumers will be confused, misled or deceived."
DSN has requested that Vital cease selling the Liquid Clen but Vital has refused to do so, according to the complaint.
"As a consequence of these activities and the impairment to DSN's goodwill, reputation and customer base, DSN has been irreparably harmed to an extent not yet determined, and defendant fully intends to continue infringing DSN's trademark rights, and continue to irreparably harm DSN, unless the court preliminarily and permanently enjoins VPX," the suit states.
In its complaint, DSN alleges trademark infringement and unfair competition against the defendants.
It seeks a judgment declaring that Vital has infringed on its trademark rights. DSN also seeks compensatory damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney fees and other relief the court deems just.
Attorney Stewart Hoffer of Hicks Thomas in Houston will representing DSN.
Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas case number: 4:14-CV-2624
This is a report on a civil lawsuit filed at the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. The details in this report come from an original complaint filed by a plaintiff. Please note that a complaint represents an accusation by a private individual, not the government. It is not an indication of guilt and it represents only one side of the story.