The Innersense lawsuit most people are asking about is Innersense Organic Beauty, Inc. v. Curl King, a federal trademark infringement case the California clean haircare company filed on August 31, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Innersense voluntarily dismissed the case on June 2, 2025, without any settlement, consent decree, or other resolution appearing in the public docket.1CourtListener. Innersense Organic Beauty, Inc. v. Curl King
What Innersense Claimed
Innersense sued a business called Curl King, an individual named Christina Powell, and ten unnamed “DOES” defendants. The complaint raised a single cause of action: trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge James Donato.1CourtListener. Innersense Organic Beauty, Inc. v. Curl King
The trademark at the center of the case is the word mark “INNERSENSE,” registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a standard character mark on July 10, 2018, under Registration No. 5513803.2Justia Trademarks. INNERSENSE Trademark Exhibits filed with the court included screenshots of a website at “myinnersense.com” associated with the defendants, along with a cease-and-desist email Innersense sent to an address at that domain. The dispute appears to have centered on the defendants’ use of a confusingly similar domain name and branding.3PACER Monitor. Innersense Organic Beauty, Inc. v. Curl King et al
Why the Case Stalled
Innersense struggled to locate the people it was suing. After a summons issued on September 14, 2023, the company filed for service by publication three separate times, in November 2023, January 2024, and March 2024. Courts allow service by publication only as a last resort, after a plaintiff shows it has been unable to reach a defendant through normal channels such as personal delivery or registered mail. The docket contains no record of Curl King, Powell, or anyone else appearing in the case or filing a response.1CourtListener. Innersense Organic Beauty, Inc. v. Curl King
How It Ended
After roughly 21 months of proceedings that produced few substantive filings, Innersense filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on June 2, 2025. A separate “Notice (Other)” was filed the same day, but its contents are not publicly available in the docket. The dismissal was without prejudice, which means Innersense keeps the right to refile the same claims later if it chooses.1CourtListener. Innersense Organic Beauty, Inc. v. Curl King3PACER Monitor. Innersense Organic Beauty, Inc. v. Curl King et al
No settlement agreement or court-ordered resolution appears in the public record. Whether the parties reached a private agreement that prompted the dismissal is not something the available filings show.1CourtListener. Innersense Organic Beauty, Inc. v. Curl King
An Older, Unrelated Case
Searches for an Innersense lawsuit sometimes surface a much older matter that has nothing to do with the Curl King trademark case. In June 2008, Mammini Corporation sued Innersense Organic Beauty LLC in Santa Clara County Superior Court for breach of contract. Innersense did not respond, and the court entered a default judgment of $39,868.53 against the company on December 12, 2008.4PlainSite. Mammini Corporation v. Innersense Organic Beauty LLC The underlying contract details are not in the public record, and the case is closed.5UniCourt. Mammini Corporation vs Innersense Organic Beauty LLC