Business
U.S. District Court Rules Favorably for Kasten, Inc. on Basis of Legal Allegations Against Defendants Viaderma, Otiko and Phillips
U.S. District Court Rules Favorably for Kasten, Inc. on Basis of Legal Allegations Against Defendants Viaderma, Otiko and Phillips.
About this update from Viaderma, Inc.
[{"type":"text","content":"\n\n\n\nU.S. District Court Rules Favorably for Kasten, Inc. on Basis of Legal Allegations Against Defendants Viaderma, Otiko and Phillips\n\n/* Style Definitions */\nspan.prnews_span\n{\nfont-size:8pt;\nfont-family:\"Arial\";\ncolor:black;\n}\na.prnews_a\n{\ncolor:blue;\n}\nli.prnews_li\n{\nfont-size:8pt;\nfont-family:\"Arial\";\ncolor:black;\n}\np.prnews_p\n{\nfont-size:0.62em;\nfont-family:\"Arial\";\ncolor:black;\nmargin:0in;\n}\n\n\n\n\n\n\nU.S. District Court Rules Favorably for Kasten, Inc. on Basis of Legal Allegations Against Defendants Viaderma, Otiko and Phillips\nPR Newswire\nSIOUX FALLS, S.D., Feb. 26, 2018\n\n\n\nSIOUX FALLS, S.D., Feb. 26, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- In mid-2017, Kasten, Inc. (PINK: KAST) joined OPD Holdings, LLC, as a Co-Plaintiff in a South Dakota federal district court lawsuit against several people and entities throughout the United States involving numerous business and intellectual property claims. The claims were then amended more specifically toward Defendant Howard Phillips and his companies in Oklahoma, Christopher Ayo Otiko in California and his company Viaderma, LLC, (PINK: VDRM) also of California. \n\nThe Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Phillips, Otiko and Viaderma included federal trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, breach of contract, unfair competition, tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy, conversion, and civil conspiracy. On January 28, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Karen E. Schreier issued a ruling in this case.\n\nThe U.S. District Court denied Otiko and ViaDerma's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Rather, the Court found that Kasten and OPD had pleaded sufficient facts to support all of their claims against the defendants. The court also concluded that the state of South Dakota had jurisdiction over Otiko, ViaDerma, and the Phillips Defendants.  \n\nHowever, the court held that because the actions underlying the federal Lanham Act claims had occurred in California and Oklahoma, the case was not properly venued in the federal District of South Dakota.  The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the opportunity to re-file all of these claims in either federal or state courts in California or Oklahoma, as well as certain of the claims in a South Dakota state court....