IMAGENETIX SUES NIKKEN & TOP LEADERS $10 MILLION+
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IMAGENETIX, INC, a Nevada Corporation
Vs.
NIKKEN INC… a California Corporation
KURT FULLE, An Individual, President and CEO NIKKEN
CHARLES COCHRAN, An Individual, Corporate Speaker NIKKEN
DAVID BALZER, An Individual, Consultant & Tech Advisor NIKKEN
MAC MACDONALD, An Individual, NIKKEN ROYAL AMDASSADOR
PATRICIA TERRY, An Individual, NIKKEN ROYAL AMDASSADOR
DAVE JOHNSON, An Individual, NIKKEN ROYAL AMDASSADOR
VALERIE JOHNSON, An Individual, NIKKEN ROYAL AMDASSADOR
DENNIS WILLIAMS, An Individual, NIKKEN ROYAL AMDASSADOR
RUTH WILLIAMS, An Individual, NIKKEN ROYAL AMDASSADOR
DOES 1-100
EDITORS NOTES: The information below consistents of excerpts from the lawsuit Imagenetix filed against NIKKEN and top Distributors. We will have the complete case scanned and up very soon - so stand by!
BACKGROUND FACTS
24. On October 29, 1996, the United States patent Office duly issued United States Patent No. 5,596,676 entitled “METHOD FOR THE TREATMENT OF OSTEOARTHRITIS” to Harry W. Diehl. A true copy of the ‘676 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The ‘676 patent relates to a method of treating “the symptoms of non-rheumatoid arthritis by administering to the afflicted subject a therapeutically effective amount of cetyl myristoleate either orally, topically, or parenterally.” ‘676 Patent Abstract.
25. The ‘676 Patent has been assigned to Plaintiff by virtue of an assignment dated April 8, 2009 and recorded with the United States Patent Office on January 6, 2010, which can be found at reel/frame 023731/0714.
by Defendants Dr. CHARLES COCHRAN and DAVID BALZER, Defendants state: “In our joint compound, and this is the newly formulated joint compound, and I’m proud to say that it not only uses and is endorsed by the Diehl Estate, we call it “The Real Diehl”, this formulation was put together by Dr. Charles Cochran, Dr. Chuck Cochran, who’s going to join us in a couple of minutes to talk about what he’s done, to talk about his life with CM [cetyl myristoleate] and why he put this formulation together the way he did.”
29. Defendants actively promote these products for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Defendants further promote the active ingredient in these products – cetyl myristoleate – as the component responsible for beneficial treatment of osteoarthritis. See Exhibits B and C. During a NIKKEN INC.
34. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendants have infringed and are continuing to infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘676 patent by practicing one or more claims of the ‘676 patent, in its manufacture, use, offering for sale, sale and importation of the accused products, and by contributing to this infringement and inducing others to infringe.
35. Plaintiff currently estimate the present and future damages of approximately $10,300,000 based on the Defendants’ historical sales of these products, as has been discerned by Plaintiff. However Plaintiff reserves the right to adjust this damages estimate based on evidence adduced at trial.
39. Defendants CHARLES COCHRAN, DAVID BALZER and NIKKEN INC. have made statements that the Diehl estate has endorsed the accused products: “In our joint compound, and this is the newly formulated joint compound, and I’m proud to say that it not only uses and is endorsed by the Diehl Estate, we call it ‘The Real Diehl.’ …
43. In addition to the damages to Plaintiff, a civil penalty of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for each sale, which constitutes a violation of the Cal. Business and Professional Code Sec. 17200, is appropriate and will result in severe multi-million dollar penalties.
49. Defendants’ false statements have caused injury to Plaintiffs by deceptively suggesting a superior product with no scientific basis, and these statements were made solely to promote the accused products over the competition in violation of California Business and Profession Code § 17200 et seq.
53. Defendants have made statements that the Diehl estate has endorsed the accused products as described above. On information and belief, those statements are willfully false and misleading. This statement is literally false and not mere puffery.
55. The Defendants sold the accused products through interstate commerce.
56. Defendants false statement have caused injury to Plaintiffs by deceptively suggesting to the public that the accused products are endorsed by the ‘676 Patent inventor and therefore cannot infringe the ‘676 Patent in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Defendants false statements are intended to create the appearance that the accused products are legitimately made and sold.
64. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment in its favor on each and every claim for relief set forth above and award it relief, including, but not limited to the following:
• a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants, their principals, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns and all those in active concert or participation with Defendants who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, from:
COMPLETE NIKKEN LAWSUIT COMING! Sign up above!
IMAGENETIX VS MONAVIE CV 3:2008cv00814 Federal Court San Diego
DISTRIBUTORS IN LAWSUIT TOO
WOW! THE LARGEST MLM LAWSUIT EVER FILED! 2.75 BILLION DOLLARS!
What your editor didn't like and was most alarming..... filing against distributors to include 1-10,000. Now let's understand that lawsuits occur with ALL successful MLM companies on a regular basis. In fact just about every American business of any kind ends up in lawsuits in our lawsuit crazy country. The big difference with this lawsuit is the scope of trademark violation goes down to leaders was the biggest amount EVER for a lawsuit in the MLM world!
Imagenetix Inc v. Monavie LLC et al
Plaintiff: Imagenetix Inc
Defendants: Monarch Health Sciences, Inc, Monavie LLC, Mona Vie Inc, Dallin Larsen, Henry Marsh, Randy Larsen, Amy Cowley, John Brigham Hart, Lita Hart, Steven Merritt, Gina Merritt, Darrell Utterbach, Tracy Utterbach, Joseph Licciardi, Patrice Licciardi, Andre Walton, Penny Walton, James Bellacera,Corbin Roush, Holly Roush, Charles Kalb, Deborah Kalb, Ronald Prudhomme, Brenda Prudhomme, Edward Aristizabal, Shelly Aristizabal, Brian Cattano, Jill Cattano, Matthew Curtis, Kimberly Curtis, Tina Dupart, Todd Hartog, Angelique Hartog, Rodney Howard-Browne, Adonica Howard-Browne, Mickey Karshner, Victoria Karshner, Jason Lyons, Carrie Lyons, Angel Matos, Grayson Maule, Ken Porter, Robert Robinson, Linda Robinson, Devon Robinson, Todd Smith, Stephanie Smith, Frank Soucinek, Jr, Cynthia Soucinek, Brian Thayer, Jacqueline Thayer, Bo Vanpelt, Carrie Vanpelt, Black Diamond University Inc, Denise Bellacera, Kelly Bangert, Jillian Bangert, Eric M Gutman, Rebekah Gutman and Does 1 - 10,000, inclusive
Court: 
California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office [ Court Info ]
County: San Diego
Case Number: 3:2008cv00814
Filed: May 5, 2008
Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property - Trademark
Cause: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Presiding Judge: Judge Janis L. Sammartino
Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Amount Demanded: $2,750,000,000.00
Key words: Imagenetix, MonaVie, Lawsuit, Celadrin
