Federal Court Clears Way for Avantcare's Case to Proceed Against Rogers Kirven, Puricorp and Declinol

The Federal Court in Orlando denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss recently, clearing the way for Avantcare to proceed on its claims against Rogers Kirven, Puricorp, and Declinol.

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friendRepost This
the Court noted that, “Just shoved out there, it sounds pretty misleading..."

Orlando, Florida (PRWEB) April 29, 2014

Avantcare’s case alleges that Rogers Kirven, Puricorp, Declinol, and other shell companies controlled by Kirven have engaged in, and are engaging in various types of intellectual property infringement, false advertising, and deceptive trade practices.

At a hearing in Orlando, Florida on January 22, 2014, in the Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing, Volume II - page 114, line 10 - the Court took issue with Declinol’s “expert” witness, Mr. Steve Kushner, questioning whether there is “any sense in which the “study” that (Declinol boasts in support of its product) should be relied on for anything.”

Similarly, on page 120 line number 3, the Court also took issue with Declinol’s claimed success rates, asking Mr. Kushner, “Well, you’d agree that 85% of 10 people (the number claimed in Declinol’s “study”) doesn’t make any sense?” After an exchange between Mr. Kushner and the Court regarding Declinol’s claimed 85% success rate, the Court noted that, “Just shoved out there, it sounds pretty misleading to me.”

The ruling allows Avantcare to proceed on its claims, which will require Declinol to defend the statements it makes about its products in future proceedings.

The details of the lawsuit filed Avantcare, Inc. v. Kirven, Jr. et al., No 6:13-cv-01581-DAB (M.D.Fla.) are available on the website of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida or below in Sources.

The Defendants have no association or connection with Avantcare, Inc. or any of its products separate and apart from the aforementioned litigation. The Defendants and their respective names may be trademarks of third parties, and Avantcare makes no claims related to them.

Sources:
1. Avantcare, Inc. v. Kirven, Jr. et al., No 6:13-cv-01581-DAB (M.D.Fla.) Avantcare, Inc. v. Kirven, Jr. et al., http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/florida-middle-district-court/619699/avantcare-inc-v-rogers-w-kirven-jr-et-al/summary/
2. Page 114, line 10 and Page 120, line 3 - United States District Court Middle District of Florida Orlando Division - Docket No. 6:13-CV-1581, Excerpt Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing Volume II Defense Witnesses before the honorable David A. Baker U.S. Magistrate Judge


Contact