The Vivazen lawsuit that most directly involves the brand is a federal trademark case in Georgia, Blue Mountain Holdings Ltd. v. Bliss Nutraceticals, LLC, which ended badly for the trademark owners: in August 2023, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that the VIVAZEN mark had been abandoned through naked licensing, meaning the company claiming to own the brand had effectively forfeited it. Vivazen has also been tied to an earlier federal counterfeit-goods suit and to FDA pressure that forced a product reformulation, but the brand itself has not been named as a defendant in the wave of kratom wrongful death cases making headlines.
The Georgia Trademark Case
The core Vivazen lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia as Case No. 1:20-cv-01837. The plaintiffs were Segment Consulting Management, Ltd. (later renamed Blue Mountain Holdings) and Lighthouse Enterprises, Inc., a Barbados holding company. Lighthouse had bought the Vivazen brand from Simply Marketing, Inc. in October 2015 and registered the VIVAZEN mark with the USPTO in early 2017 under Registration No. 5140001.1Internet Archive. Blue Mountain Holdings v. Bliss Nutraceticals Court Opinion
The suit accused a cluster of companies and individuals of hijacking that name to sell competing kratom and CBD products. The corporate defendants were Bliss Nutraceticals, LLC (a Georgia company), Vivazen Botanicals, LLC (an inactive Florida LLC), and Natural Vitamins Laboratory Corp., which manufactured the allegedly infringing products. Six individuals were also named: Rachana Arora, Karan Arora, Shruti Shah, Shabana Patel, Faruq Patel, and Phillip Jones.2Midpage. Blue Mountain Holdings Ltd. v. Bliss Nutraceticals, LLC
According to the complaint, Bliss Nutraceticals began selling products under the name “Vivazen Botanicals” in January 2018 without any license from the trademark owners. The plaintiffs alleged this confused consumers and distributors, who could not tell the legitimate brand from the imitator. A cybersquatting claim was added over the domain “vivazenbotanicals.com,” which the plaintiffs said was registered in bad faith.3Internet Archive. Blue Mountain Holdings v. Bliss Nutraceticals Complaint
The individuals were closely linked to more than one of the corporate defendants. Rachana Arora, Shabana Patel, and Shruti Shah were listed as organizers of both Vivazen Botanicals, LLC (formed in Florida in September 2017 and administratively dissolved a year later) and Bliss Nutraceticals, LLC (formed in Georgia in November 2017). Karan Arora, who shared an address with Rachana Arora, served as president of Natural Vitamins Laboratory Corp. and had separately tried to register the VIVAZEN mark himself with the USPTO in 2018.4USPTO. Vivazen Trademark Opposition Filing
How the Court Ruled
The January 2022 ruling on the motions to dismiss thinned the defendant list considerably. Rachana Arora, Karan Arora, and Shruti Shah were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in Georgia. Shabana and Faruq Patel were dismissed because the allegations against them were too vague. Only Phillip Jones remained among the individual defendants, after the court found the plaintiffs had adequately alleged he promoted the infringing products at a trade show.2Midpage. Blue Mountain Holdings Ltd. v. Bliss Nutraceticals, LLC
The court also called the complaint a “shotgun pleading” for lumping every defendant together without spelling out who did what, and gave the plaintiffs 30 days to refile with cleaner allegations.
The Naked Licensing Finding
The more damaging ruling turned on the plaintiffs’ own paperwork. In January 2019, Lighthouse Enterprises had signed a “Brand Sale Agreement” that purported to transfer the Vivazen intellectual property to Blue Mountain Holdings. The court concluded it was not a true sale. Lighthouse retained a security interest, restricted Blue Mountain’s ability to license the mark, and kept contractual quality-control rights that it never actually exercised. Functionally, the court held, the arrangement was a license, not an assignment.1Internet Archive. Blue Mountain Holdings v. Bliss Nutraceticals Court Opinion
Because Lighthouse licensed the mark without policing quality, the court ruled it a “naked license,” which under trademark law causes abandonment. A brand owner who licenses a mark without meaningful quality control forfeits it. On August 11, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and Blue Mountain Holdings lost the VIVAZEN trademark.5Law360. 11th Circ. Upholds Kratom Co.’s Loss in Naked License Case
The Earlier Counterfeit Suit and FDA Pressure
Vivazen was involved in litigation years before the Georgia trademark fight. When the brand was manufactured by a company called United Naturals, dollar sales climbed more than 1,000% between September 2014 and September 2015, reaching $5.9 million. That growth drew both federal regulators and counterfeiters.6BevNET. With Mounting Pressure From FDA, Vivazen Removes Kratom in Product Reformulation
In February 2015, the FDA issued Import Alert 54-15, effectively suspending kratom imports as a dietary ingredient. Under that pressure, United Naturals reformulated Vivazen to remove kratom entirely and relaunched with four CGMP-certified lines: Bliss, Relax, Pain, and Sleep. Around the same time, United Naturals sued LXR Biotech and Capital Sales Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, accusing them of manufacturing and distributing counterfeit Vivazen products.6BevNET. With Mounting Pressure From FDA, Vivazen Removes Kratom in Product Reformulation
Vivazen and the Kratom Wrongful Death Cases
Searches for “Vivazen lawsuit” often surface alongside kratom wrongful death coverage, so the boundary is worth stating plainly: Vivazen has not been named as a defendant in the major kratom wrongful death cases that have produced verdicts and settlements. The $2.5 million Cowlitz County, Washington jury verdict in July 2023 was against Society Botanicals, LLC and its owner Wendianne Rook, who sold under the “Kratom Divine” brand.7The News Tribune. Kratom Divine Wrongful Death Verdict8NBC News. $11 Million Awarded to Family of Woman Who Died Taking Kratom9CBS News. Kratom Lawsuit After Ethan Pope Death in Georgia10ClassAction.org. $8.75 Million Botanic Tonics Settlement Reached in Feel Free Kratom Lawsuit
Those cases still matter as context for anyone reading about Vivazen, because they define the product liability risk facing any kratom seller. The theories that have won in court, failure to warn, deceptive marketing, defective design, breach of implied warranty, and unfair business practices, apply industry-wide. The FDA continues to treat kratom as an unapproved new dietary ingredient, and in July 2025 issued warning letters to seven major kratom companies over concentrated 7-hydroxymitragynine products, with FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary calling 7-OH “an opioid that can be more potent than morphine.”11Verisk. Kratom Wrongful Death Suits Highlight Growing Liability Concerns
For Vivazen specifically, the litigation record on file runs to two events: the counterfeit and reformulation period around 2015, and the trademark case that ran from 2020 through the Eleventh Circuit’s 2023 affirmance. The second one ended with the plaintiffs losing the very trademark they had sued to protect.