The case has centered on Sabinsa’s ForsLean mark and Creative Compounds’ Forsthin. Both products are extracts of Coleus forskohlii intended for use in weight management products.
To read our earlier coverage of the legal battle, please click here.
“The outcome of this case should make it clear to any company considering trademark infringement that it can become a very expensive gamble, and ultimately not worth the risk,” said James Hulme, Esq. of Arent Fox LLP in Washington, DC, who represented Sabinsa in this matter.
“I am glad that, at the end of the day, the courts recognized both the strength and value of Sabinsa’s trademark and the need for the infringer to disgorge its profit to Sabinsa.”
Dr. Muhammed Majeed, Sabinsa founder, added: “We will always protect our intellectual property, not only so we can continue researching new products and to protect the investment our customers make when they choose our products, but because it is simply the right thing to do.”
History
In January 2011, the Supreme Court denied Creative Compounds’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari – a document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking them to review the decision of a lower court – thereby finalizing a decision in Sabinsa’s favor from the Third Circuit Court in July 2010, which confirmed that Creative Compounds created a likelihood of confusion between the two brands.
In August of 2011, the US District Court of New Jersey decided on the damages to be awarded to Sabinsa.