DS Healthcare and Meditago sue Schedule A sellers over NANOXIDIL and SPECTRAL hair-care marks

What was filed

The complaint is Document 1, filed October 23, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case is DS Healthcare Group, Inc. and Meditago Holdings LLC v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 1:26-cv-27520-CMA, assigned to Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. The filing alleges federal trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and common-law unfair competition (under Florida law) and trademark infringement.

The plaintiffs and the marks

The complaint describes Meditago Holdings LLC as the owner of record of trademarks in haircare, skincare, and cosmetics, including NANOXIDIL, SPECTRAL-formative marks, DS LABORATORIES, DS LABS, and REVITA, with legacy assignments recorded at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It describes DS Healthcare Group, Inc., doing business as DS Laboratories, as holding an exclusive license from Meditago to commercialize those marks. USPTO Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) records list Meditago Holdings LLC as the current owner of NANOXIDIL, U.S. Reg. No. 6,694,052, and SPECTRAL.DNC, U.S. Reg. No. 3,510,924, both live. Among the registrations the complaint highlights are NANOXIDIL, U.S. Reg. No. 6,694,052 (April 5, 2022) for non-medicated hair serums in International Class 3, and SPECTRAL.DNC, U.S. Reg. No. 3,510,924 (October 7, 2008) for hair-loss preparations in International Class 3, which the complaint says is incontestable. It also points to Schedule B for additional registrations, including incontestable SPECTRAL.BRD, SPECTRAL.BROW, DS LABORATORIES (Reg. No. 3,460,674), and a crown design (Reg. No. 4,022,680). The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs' SPECTRAL.DNC-N men's serum uses NANOXIDIL at a 5% concentration.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint alleges that Schedule A defendants promote and sell a counterfeit product under names such as "Viareline Spectral Men's Nanoxidil al 5%" through Internet stores, including a Shopify-hosted Viareline store at tryviareline.shop, related Shopify product pages and Mercado Libre listings in Mexico and Colombia, and, it alleges on information and belief, TikTok, Instagram and YouTube accounts that promote them. It alleges a Miami-Dade County test purchase on October 1, 2026, from tryviareline.shop for three 60 ml units advertised as that product plus a dermaroller. It alleges the defendants use NANOXIDIL identically on hair serums and pair it with "Spectral Men's," which the complaint says is a colorable imitation of SPECTRAL.DNC and the SPECTRAL family, while stating that plaintiffs do not hold a registration for SPECTRAL alone or for SPECTRAL MEN'S. It further alleges, on information and belief, coordinated storefronts, shared contact details, and Meta and TikTok advertising that drive traffic to the same stores.

Claims and relief requested

Count I alleges trademark counterfeiting and infringement under Lanham Act section 32, 15 U.S.C. 1114, including use of a counterfeit of NANOXIDIL and copies or colorable imitations of SPECTRAL.DNC and related marks. Count II alleges false designation of origin and unfair competition under section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). Count III alleges Florida common-law unfair competition. Count IV alleges common-law trademark infringement. The prayer seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions; orders directing platforms and registrars to disable the Schedule A stores, accounts, and domain names and transfer or cancel the domains at final judgment; a restraint of funds in the defendants' payment accounts; the defendants' profits and damages, trebled, or at the plaintiffs' election statutory damages of up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods; destruction of infringing goods and materials; attorneys' fees and costs; and interest.

First orders

On October 27, 2026, the docket shows that Chief Judge Altonaga ordered the plaintiffs to show cause, on or before November 6, 2026, why all defendants other than the first-named defendant on Schedule A should not be severed and dismissed. The same day she denied without prejudice a sealed motion at docket entry 8.