Back in 2012
Young Living
filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against
doTerra
.
doTerra claimed Young Living’s lawsuit was full of “baseless allegations” and part of ‘
a sinister and desperate marketing campaign to try to halt doTERRA’s remarkable ascension
‘.
In June 2017 Young Living’s claims were dismissed and they lost the case.
Said doTerra at the time through a press-release;
Not surprisingly, a jury of our peers found no merit in Young Living’s allegations and rejected every single one of Young Living’s claims for damages.
Young Living’s abuse of our judicial system in an effort to slander doTERRA is finally over.
Not content with just winning the case, doTerra pursued the matter as ‘
a wasteful and conniving use of our country’s legal system
‘.
On July 12th a ruling was made in doTerra’s favor.
Utah Fourth Judicial District Court Judge Christine S. Johnson issued a ruling that awarded doTERRA Defendants $1,810,344.11 in attorney’s fees and approximately $50,000 in out-of-pocket costs.
The judge has definitively confirmed that Young Living’s case was not only ill-advised, but brought in bad faith.
Young Living’s unfounded attack has now lasted six years and was a waste of time, energy, funds, and public judicial resources.
Young Living’s lawsuit was not seeking justice, but rather was used as a public relations vehicle by Young Living’s founder, Gary Young, who put out a video and created a website that recited the lawsuit’s bad faith claims and made false and damaging statements about several of doTERRA’s founders and early distributors.
The Court recognized the enduring harm of these actions and declared that “[t]he task of defending against Young Living’s claims was made even more daunting by the fact that Young Living sought damages in excess of $300 million dollars.” (Ruling p. 23)
The Court excoriated Young Living for “its bad behavior” and focused much of its ire on Young Living’s ruse that allowed it to file the lawsuit in the first place.
The court found Young Living had falsified evidence by tampering with a computer, and attempted misdirection to cover it up when caught out.
In light of ruling, doTerra stated it looks
forward to a less contentious relationship with Young Living and a time where both companies may now focus on their respective missions and sharing essential oils.
Rather than put the loss of the lawsuit and bad faith finding behind them though, Young Living seems to have other ideas.
In a July 12th press-release of its own, the company stated;
We deeply respect the judicial process but had hoped for a different outcome, as many key claims and pieces of evidence were not allowed to be presented at trial due to legal technicalities such as the statute of limitations ruling and other rulings made by the court.
In fact, this ruling did not address the merits of Young Living’s claims but focused on alleged reasons why Young Living waited to present one of its claims.
Young Living appealed the
🤖 Quick Answer
What was the outcome of Young Living's trademark infringement lawsuit against doTerra filed in 2012?In June 2017, the court dismissed Young Living's claims and ruled against them. A jury found no merit in Young Living's allegations and rejected all claims for damages. doTerra subsequently pursued the case further, characterizing Young Living's lawsuit as an abusive and wasteful use of the legal system.
Why did doTerra criticize Young Living's lawsuit as a "bad faith" legal action?
doTerra characterized the lawsuit as baseless allegations and part of a marketing campaign to hinder their business growth. After winning, doTerra pursued sanctions, describing Young Living's action as a wasteful and conniving misuse of the country's judicial system designed to slander their company.
🔗 Related Articles
- Multiple counts dismissed in Vista Network Piccolo lawsuit
- Paparazzi “lead & nickel free” class-action filed in California
- The Vista Network Piccolo legal saga isn’t over
- 30 Day Success Formula scammers convicted of fraud
- Project Ethereum Review: 2×8 matrix ether gifting