Artemis Distribution Lawsuit Over Cryoskin Brand Rights

The Artemis Distribution Cryoskin lawsuit was a federal trademark case in the Middle District of Florida in which the French manufacturer of Cryoskin cryotherapy devices, Pro Design Plus SAS, and its new U.S. distributor, Open Sea Distribution Corp., sued Artemis Distribution, LLC, the brand’s former exclusive U.S. distributor, over competing rights to the “Cryoskin” name. Filed in December 2020, the case was terminated on January 5, 2024, and a follow-on motion to enforce a settlement was denied in March 2026 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.¹²

Who Was Fighting Over the Cryoskin Name

Pro Design Plus owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6098247 for a stylized “Cryoskin” mark used on cryotherapy devices. Artemis had been Pro Design’s exclusive U.S. distributor, selling under the “Cryo Skin 2.0” and stylized “Cryoskin” marks, before Open Sea took over that role. Simon Mansell, an Artemis owner, was named individually, and an Italian company, Lumiere SRL, was named as a co-defendant aligned with Artemis. After Artemis filed claims against Open Sea’s owner Neil Porras personally, he was pulled in as a third-party defendant.³⁴

The core problem, the court later observed, was that the parties had “never reduced to writing their understanding of their respective intellectual property rights.” That silence sat at the heart of everything that followed.³

The Claims on Each Side

Open Sea and Pro Design sued Artemis under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competition, asserting rights to the registered stylized Cryoskin mark and common-law rights to the “Cryoskin” name and its variations.¹

Artemis pushed back with mirror-image trademark and unfair competition counterclaims, plus counterclaims for defamation, tortious interference with business relations, and fraud in the inducement. It pointed to its own U.S. trademark registrations and pending applications for marks including “Cryoskin,” “Cryoskin3-0,” “Cryoskin4-0,” “Cryoslimming,” and “Cryotoning,” a signed distribution agreement, and a pending petition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel Pro Design’s registration.¹³

What the Court Decided on Summary Judgment

On September 19, 2023, Judge Timothy J. Corrigan issued a summary judgment order that narrowed the case without ending it.³

Several of Artemis’s counterclaims were thrown out. The court granted summary judgment for Open Sea and Pro Design on the defamation and tortious interference counterclaims, and granted summary judgment for Porras on the same third-party claims Artemis had brought against him personally. Artemis had not produced enough evidence to take those theories to trial.³

The trademark fight itself survived for both sides. The court denied summary judgment on the infringement and unfair competition claims and counterclaims, finding genuine factual disputes. It also denied summary judgment on Artemis’s fraud counterclaim against Pro Design, rejected Artemis’s challenge to the plaintiffs’ demand for disgorgement of profits, and rejected Artemis’s argument that Open Sea and Pro Design could not rely on Section 5 of the Lanham Act. The court read the plaintiffs’ trademark claims to cover both the registered stylized mark and common-law rights in the “Cryoskin” name and its variations.³

How the Case Ended

The case was terminated on January 5, 2024. The docket entries available do not spell out the specific mechanism.¹

What happened after termination suggests the parties thought they had a deal but could not finish it. On February 12, 2024, they held a nine-hour settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale and apparently reached terms, but the effort to reduce the agreement to writing collapsed. A follow-up mediation also failed.⁴

Open Sea then asked the court to enforce whatever had been agreed to. On March 6, 2026, Judge Corrigan denied that motion without prejudice, ruling that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. The “without prejudice” label leaves Open Sea room to pursue enforcement in another forum or to refile if it can establish jurisdiction, but the federal court did not resolve the underlying dispute on the merits.²⁴

The Parallel USPTO Fight

The court case ran alongside proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Artemis’s application for a plain-text “Cryoskin” mark (Serial No. 88007849) was suspended at Artemis’s own request, and the petition to cancel Pro Design’s registered stylized mark (TTAB Proceeding No. 92074775) was stayed while the federal case was pending. With the federal litigation closed without a merits ruling on the trademark claims, the status of those USPTO matters is unsettled.³

1
CourtListener. Open Sea Distribution Corp v Artemis Distribution LLC Docket
2
PACER Monitor. Open Sea Distribution Corp et al v Artemis Distribution LLC et al
3
vLex. Open Sea Distribution Corp v Artemis Distribution LLC
4
CaseMine. Open Sea Distribution Corp v Artemis Distribution LLC