Tag: VPR Brands

  • Revenues and Income Down at VPR

    Revenues and Income Down at VPR

    VPR Brands reported revenues of $1.77 million for the second quarter of 2024, down from $1.9 million in the comparable 2023 quarter. Gross profit was $451,469, compared with $1.1 million in the second quarter of 2023.

    “While the second quarter presented some challenges, we are encouraged by the solid growth in our product sales and the positive trajectory of our business,” said VPR Brands CEO Kevin Frija.

    “Our ability to generate consistent revenue, coupled with our strategic investments, positions us well for future success. We are committed to driving innovation and expanding our market presence, and we believe that our focus on quality and customer satisfaction will continue to deliver value to our shareholders.”

    Looking ahead, VPR Brands says it remains focused on expanding its product lines and enhancing its market footprint. “With a solid balance sheet and a dedicated team, the company is well-positioned to capitalize on emerging opportunities in the electronic cigarette and vaporizer markets,” the company wrote in a press note.

    Photo: crizzystudio
  • Elfbar to Rebrand as EB Design

    Elfbar to Rebrand as EB Design

    Photo: Olivier Le Moal

    Shenzhen Weiboli Technology Co. plans to relaunch its Elfbar e-cigarettes under the name EB Design in the United States after losing a trademark dispute in court, reports 2Firsts.

    On Feb. 23, a federal judge ordered Weiboli to stop marketing its Elfbar e-cigarettes in the U.S., finding that VPR Brands, which makes and sells Elf brand vapes, is likely to succeed on its claims that the Elfbar vapes infringe its trademark.

    In an interview with 2Firsts, Elfbar’s North American public relations manager said that while Elfbar would launch its new name in March, the brand would retain its original logo. The letters E and B in “EB Design” are believed to represent the initials of Elfbar.

    Elfbar’s American PR manager said the company would continue to focus on the United States. The brand’s U.S. suppliers and distributors market are aware of the name change and prepared for it, he noted.

  • U.S. Court Orders Halt to Elfbar Sales

    U.S. Court Orders Halt to Elfbar Sales

    Photo: md3d

    A U.S. federal judge on Feb. 23 ordered Shenzhen Weiboli Technology to stop marketing its Elfbar e-cigarettes in the U.S., finding that VPR Brands, which makes and sells Elf brand vapes, is likely to succeed on its claims that the Elfbar vapes infringe its trademark, reports Law360.

    According to U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, VPR has shown there is a likelihood of confusion and the company stands to suffer harm if its Chinese competitor is allowed to keep selling the Elfbar vapes.

    In November, VPR asked for an injunction blocking Shenzhen Weiboli from continuing to use the Elfbar mark, arguing the alleged infringement is costing VPR about $100 million because of the effect on future sales.

    VPR claims Shenzhen Weiboli is not only infringing VPR’s Elf trademark but also its patent for its e-cigarette device.

    While there is no direct evidence that Shenzhen Weiboli deliberately intended to adopt the Elf mark to take advantage of the existing trademark, Judge Cannon wrote that the company was well aware of the Elf mark and that there was potential for confusion, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the registration of an Elfbar trademark specifically for those reasons.

    VPR welcomed the judge’s decision. “VPR is pleased that the court found Elf is a strong trademark and granted the injunction,” said Joel B. Rothman of Sriplaw, which represented VPR in the case. “The injunction will allow VPR to move quickly against infringers and counterfeiters in the marketplace.”

    An attorney for Shenzhen Weiboli said the company intends to appeal the order.

  • FDA Warns VPR Over Nicotine Gummies

    FDA Warns VPR Over Nicotine Gummies

    Photo: Ljupco Smokovski

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 18 issued a warning letter to VPR Brands (doing business as Krave Nic) for marketing illegal flavored nicotine gummies—the first warning letter for this type of product.

    According to the FDA, these types of gummies are of particular public concern because of their resemblance to kid-friendly food or candy products and the potential to cause severe nicotine toxicity or even death among young children.

    VPR Brands markets gummies that have 1 mg of nicotine each and are available in three flavors – Blueraz, Cherry Bomb and Pineapple. The packaging claims that the products contain tobacco-free nicotine. This firm has not submitted a premarket tobacco product application to the FDA, and does not have a marketing authorization order to manufacture, sell or distribute these products in the U.S.

    “Nicotine gummies are a public health crisis just waiting to happen among our nation’s youth, particularly as we head into a new school year,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf in a statement. “We want parents to be aware of these products and the potential for health consequences for children of all ages—including toxicity to young children and appeal of these addictive products to our youth. The FDA will not stand by as illegal products infiltrate the marketplace.”

  • Trial Board Upholds Validity VPR Patent

    Trial Board Upholds Validity VPR Patent

    Illustration: VPR Brands

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld the validity of a VPR Brands patent that is considered one of the first patents for modern electronic nicotine-delivery system (ENDS) products.

    The PTAB denied an appeal by Jupiter Research to invalidate VPR’s U.S. Patent 8,205,622 B2. The decision of the PTAB final.

    The VPR patent dates to 2009 and includes independent claims covering electronic cigarette products containing an electric airflow sensor, including a sensor comprised of a diaphragm microphone.

    The sensor turns the battery on and off, and covers most auto-draw, buttonless e-cigarettes, cigalikes, pod devices and vaporizers using an airflow sensor rather than a button.

    According to VPR, the PTAB’s decision clears the way for infringement litigation against Jupiter pending in the District of Arizona.

    VPR Brands and its legal representative, SRIPLAW, have started to identify and notify more than 50 of the leading companies using the auto-draw technology. VPR Brands says it intends to vigorously enforce its patent.

    “These companies were prioritized, based on sales volume and popularity,” VPR wrote in a press release. “Most recently VPR Brands LP and its legal team, headed by Joel B Rothman of SRIPLAW, have filed litigation against nine of the companies. Additional lawsuits will continue to be filed as necessary to protect the company’s intellectual property rights.”

    A majority of the vaping devices sold in the U.S. now utilize an auto-draw/button-less technology. The company is investigating all buttonless vape devices within the nicotine, CBD and cannabis space that initiate vaporization from the user’s airflow inhalation as those types of products would be suspect of infringement.

    The company may also seek a buyer for this patent in the future. In August 2013, Imperial Tobacco Group (now ITG Brands) purchased the intellectual property behind the Ruyan e-cigarette, often considered the first modern ENDS product, for $75 million.

  • VPR Brands Settles IP Dispute

    VPR Brands Settles IP Dispute

    Illustration: VPR Brands

    PHD Marketing has agreed to pay VPR Brands $85,000 to settle an intellectual property dispute. As part of the deal, VPR Brands has granted PHD a nonexclusive, non-assignable license to practice the invention set forth in the patent.

    This U.S. patent includes claims covering electronic cigarette products containing an electric airflow sensor, including a sensor comprised of a diaphragm microphone. The sensor turns the battery on and off, and covers most auto-draw, e-cigarettes, cigalikes, pod devices and vaporizers using an airflow sensor rather than a button.

    VPR previously filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent by PHD.

    “I want to once again thank our legal team at SRIPLAW for their hard work and diligence in settling this matter,” said VPR CEO Brands Kevin Frija in a statement. “It is a Win-Win for All parties when a dispute can be settled ahead of trial.”

    Previously, HQDTECH USA and Nepa 2 Wholesale agreed to pay more than $275,000 to VPR Brands for infringing on the same patent.

  • VPR Brands Sues for Patent Infringement

    VPR Brands Sues for Patent Infringement

    Photo: VPR Brands

    VPR Brands has filed lawsuits against three more vapor companies for violating its “auto draw” patent. The cases are in addition to suits filed against three other companies in February.

    Granted in 2009, the patent covers vaping products containing an electric airflow sensor, including a sensor comprised of a diaphragm microphone. The sensor turns the battery on and off and covers auto-draw, buttonless e-cigarettes, cigalikes, pod devices and vaporizers using an airflow sensor.

    “Just this week, we have filed three additional lawsuits, which brings the total to six with many more expected and likely as almost every company in the vape space has at least one product which uses the patented ‘auto draw’ technology.” said Kevin Frija, CEO of VPR Brands, in a statement. “We will be aggressively pursuing every company infringing on our patent no matter how small or how large they may be.”

    VPR Brands and SRIPLAW, an intellectual property firm, have started to identify and notify companies they suspect of infringing on the VPR patent. Most recently, VPR Brands and SRIPLAW filed litigation against Mong, B&G Trading and Lightfire Holding. The three previous suits were filed against Jupiter Research, Cool Clouds Distribution and XL Vape.

    “We want to make sure VPR Brands’ patent, which is valid until 2030, is enforced and our intellectual property rights are protected,” said Frija. “We intend to send a clear message to the industry that we mean business and of course, as they say, ‘business is business,’ it’s nothing personal; in the end, its just business.”