IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D.N.Y.: Preliminary injunction bars use of words, design marks, disparaging claims, (May 18, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The suit involves the marketing and sales of pharmaceutical grade products for pets and supplements for human consumption.

The federal district court in New York City issued a preliminary injunction against a company barring it from using certain words and design marks in commerce and falsely advertising and disparaging certain products sold by a competitor. The order grants temporary relief on trademark infringement and false advertising claims. Meanwhile, the Court denied injunctive relief on cybersquatting and trade dress infringement claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits (Virogex, Inc. v. ResolvX Health Inc., No. 1:26-cv-03179-LJL (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2026)).

Background. Plaintiff, Virogex, Inc., markets and sells pharmaceutical grade products for pets and supplements for human consumption. Among the products Virogex sells are VIR-X, an immune support supplement; PETMECTIN, a pharmaceutical grade ivermectin for pets; PETDAZOLE, a pharmaceutical grade fenbendazole for pets; FISHCYCLINE, a pharmaceutical grade doxycycline for fish; and Flav-x, a pharmaceutical grade allulose. PETMECTIN, PETADAZOLE, and FISHCYCLINE are directed to pets, but Virogex has also advertised these products for human consumption. ResolvX Health Inc. is a corporation formed by Vas Leonidov, who co-founded Virogex and previously served as its sole director, president, secretary, and treasurer. ResolvX Health and Leonidov are Co-Defendants.

In May 2025, Plaintiff began submitting applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register word and marks associated with the company’s name, website, and products. Plaintiff sought to register marks for PETMECTIN, PETDAZOLE, FISHCYCLINE, FLAV-X, and VIR-X, with Leonidov opposed. Plaintiffs then filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order and further injunctive relief.

Holding. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion was granted on Plaintiff’s trademark infringement and false advertising claims. The motion was denied as to Plaintiff’s cybersquatting and trade dress infringement claims. The Court enjoined Defendants from using the word and/or design marks for PETMECTIN, PETDAZOLE, FISHCYCLINE, FLAV-X, VIR-X, Virogex, or Virex Health in commerce. The Court further enjoined Defendants from falsely advertising that ResolvX is a rebrand of Virogex’s Virex Health line, from otherwise claiming that Virogex products are inauthentic or fake, or from representing that ResolvX or its products have any affiliation with Virogex or the Virex Health brand.

Preliminary injunction standard. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the plaintiff’s favor; (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction; (3) that the balance of hardships tips in the plaintiff’s favor; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by the issuance of an injunction.

Trademark infringement. The first cause of action alleges false designation of origin, false association, and trademark dilution under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. The second cause of action is for false designation of origin under Section 45 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). The Court found that Virogex is entitled to protection and has established a likelihood of success. The Court reasoned that it was unnecessary to perform the step-by-step examination of all eight factors under Polaroid v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961), given that the marks are identical, the goods are identical and directly competitive, and the consumers for the products are not sophisticated.

False advertising. Plaintiff’s third cause of action alleges false advertising in violation of Section 41 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff argued that Defendant violated this provision of the Lanham Act by falsely advertising that RexolvX is a “rebrand” of Virex Health and the sole legitimate source of Virogex’s products. The Court held it is likely that these statements will cause a shift of sales from Plaintiff to Defendant by those who are falsely deceived.

Cybersquatting. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief on a claim under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). The Court reasoned that Plaintiff did not introduce evidence to permit the Court to find that Defendants in fact purchased or registered the domain name virogex.com.

Trade dress infringement. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief on its claim that the ResolvX website infringed on the trade dress of the Virex.Health website. The Court held that Plaintiff did not present or develop any evidence about the design of the website at the evidentiary hearing and did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the claim.

Irreparable harm. The Court held that Plaintiff adequately demonstrated irreparable harm given that the identical infringing products are being marketed to the exact same audience alongside a message that the original products are counterfeit, coupled with the great possibility of consumer confusion.

Balance of the equities and the public interest. The Court found that on balance, Plaintiff’s business faces immediate and irreparable harm to its legitimate business interests, and that the likelihood of confusion and potential loss of goodwill and reputation threaten to cause Plaintiff great harm. Further, the Court said, Protecting Plaintiff’s valid trademarks from infringement does not disserve the public interest.

The Case is No. 1:26-cv-03179-LJL.

Judge: Liman, L.

Attorneys: Gabriel Altman (Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP) for Virogex Inc. John P. Fazzio, III (Fazzio Law Offices, LLC) for Resolvx Health Inc.

Companies: Virogex Inc.; Resolvx Health Inc.

Cases: Trademark TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews