Virogex sued ResolvX and ResolvX’s founder Leonidov for trademark infringement and false advertising following a bitter split between Virogex and Leonidov, who had served as Virogex’s sole officer and director since the company’s 2020 founding. The case addressed an intriguing modern intellectual property ownership question: When most of a company’s sales are by way of an executive’s social media channel, does that executive somehow get rights in the trademarks for those products?
Virogex asked the court to stop defendants from using several of its marks. It also sought to prevent defendants from claiming that ResolvX was Virogex’s rebrand or that Virogex’s products were counterfeit.
The court granted the injunction on both claims. Defendants were prohibited from using Virogex’s marks or representing any affiliation with the company.
The court ruled this way because it found that Virogex owned the marks, not Leonidov personally. Although Leonidov had designed the packaging, run the company’s marketing through his popular Substack newsletter, and driven most sales, he had done it all as an officer of Virogex. After his removal as director, Leonidov created ResolvX as his own company and immediately announced on his Substack that all Virogex products would now be offered exclusively through ResolvX. But the goodwill belonged to Virogex, not to Leonidov. The court found that defendants’ claim that ResolvX was Virogex’s legitimate successor was simply false and likely to deceive consumers.
Virogex Inc. v. ResolvX Health Inc., 2026 WL 1345962 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2026)