PENNYWISE Cosmetics – one of the largest retail chains in the Caribbean specialising in health and beauty products – has been restrained from selling a brand of medical grade line of skincare in its ten stores throughout the country.
The order was made on April 12 by Justice Joan Charles, who granted an injunction to the Maraval-based dermatology clinic Skin Health Institute led by Dr Rachel Eckel who has used the ZO Skin Health brand at her clinic for the past seven years, manufactured in the United States.
In an application for the injunction, Eckel and SHI maintained the ZO product line was medical grade and was intended to be physician-controlled only so the products could only be sold through physician-dispensed channels.
The injunction application contended that in August 2023, the claimants – SHI, Eckel and Barbados-based Dermedica Medical Ltd, the exclusive distributor of the ZO product line in the Caribbean – discovered that Pennywise began selling 20 items from the ZO product line.
“Pennywise is neither a ZO subsidiary, sales agent partner nor a ZO distribution partner…”
It also contended that the retail chain purported to have permission to sell the products when it was not authorised to do so.
The three claimants have alleged Pennywise engaged in unfair competition, “passing off” the product, misrepresenting its association with the products and engaging in “deception” by its advertising of the ZO products while telling its customers they could get a prescription from Eckel or get advice from her and SHI.
[caption id="attachment_1077245" align="alignnone" width="1024"] ZO's Skin Health brand range of skin serums - Photo courtesy Facebook[/caption]
Eckel and SHI further contended that Pennywise’s actions in linking itself to them were “an overt act intended to make a connection… and thereby cause damage to the claimants’ sales and reputation.”
In resisting the injunction, Pennywise’s attorneys argued that the company had breached no law and had always engaged in honest business practices.
They also pointed out that ZO products were available, without a prescription, from international retail sources such as Walmart, Amazon and eBay.
Pennywise’s defence said the company had no interest in being associated with SHI or Eckel as it had its own independent, well-established reputation while also accusing both of attempting to “obtain a monopoly” over the local sale of ZO products.
This, the local retail chain said, was contrary to the spirit and tenor of the Protection Against Unfair Competition Act.
The attorneys also pointed out that the ZO product labels show that physician supervision is not mandatory for persons using the ZO products while accusing the claimants of setting out to “create fear and hysteria.
“Additionally, the importation of the products was not flagged by any government agency as being illegal and/or unlawful.”
In her ruling, Charles said it was not in dispute that the ZO line of products was introduced by SHI and Eckel in 2016.
She said from the evidence
