Trademark Battle Gets Ugly — Thought this was interesting to a point, but when I saw what these companies are charging for these products I hope they both lose in court.

When it comes to beauty products, the fight for customers can get ugly.

Take the war of the wrinkle reducers. The Salt Lake City company that distributes StriVectin-SD, marketed as “Better than Botox?” is urging a Utah federal judge to halt sales nationwide of a rival anti-wrinkle cream. Klein-Becker accuses its competitor of “immoral, unethical, oppressive, and/or unscrupulous” tactics: using a similar name – Strive-V.C.N. – to cause confusion.

“Each time a customer purchases an anti-wrinkle product based on false or unfair advertising or competition, the sale of a competing anti-wrinkle/stretch mark product is lost,” Klein-Becker objects in its trademark violation lawsuit.

StriVectin-SD was first sold in 2002 as a stretch-mark reducer, but soon was discovered to diminish the appearance of fine lines, wrinkles and crow’s feet, according to Klein-Becker.

The makers of new Strive-V.C.N., NDS Nutrition in Omaha, Neb., deny copying StriVectin-SD and argue customers know what they are buying. The high price of the anti-wrinkle creams – $134.99 for 7 ounces of Strive-V.C.N. and $135 for 6 ounces of StriVectin-SD – makes buyers carefully examine the products, NDS Nutrition reasons.