Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Friday, July 12, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Skin Doc With Famous Name Taken to Court

A dermatologist named Doris Day faces a lawsuit that says she ignored her duty to promote anti-aging products by xLon Beauty after trying to buy out the company.

MANHATTAN (CN) – A dermatologist named Doris Day faces a lawsuit that says she ignored her duty to promote anti-aging products by xLon Beauty after trying to buy out the company.

Filed on Dec. 29 in Manhattan Supreme Court, the complaint describes Day as a resident of 10 E. 70th St. This is the same address that appears on the website of a dermatology clinic owned by a Dr. Doris Day with no apparent connection to the prolific actress of the same name who turned 92 in April.

What the dermatologist lacks in Hitchcock connections, however, xLon says she purported to make up for on the business side.

XLon says Day indicated that she could provide “publicity, including but not limited to introductions to Dr. Oz and Christie Brinkley, and publicity through their respective media outlets.”

But Day “did not use her connections to garner publicity for the product,” the complaint states.

“She entirely failed in her promises to take steps to obtain such publicity,” it continues. “Instead, once defendant learned of the value and efficacy of the product, she attempted to purchase plaintiff, initially offering a purchase price of $500,000 and later increasing her offer to $750,000.”

Day Dermatology & Aesthetics has not returned a request for comment emailed Friday to its general business address.

XLon says it says it provided the doctor on July 19, 2016, “with 50 Cura Perfect Light boxes, 50 Cura Perfect Medium boxes, and 10 Cura Perfect Dark boxes.”

Day has neither used the samples in performance of her obligations, however, nor has she returned the samples to xLon.

“Instead, on information and belief, defendant sold the samples for her personal gain,” the complaint states.

XLon says Day also “did not make herself available” when it demanded she appear for a video promotion on Nov. 1, 2016.

Under the initial agreement between xLon and Day in August 2015, xLon says it received “the right and license to use defendant’s name, nickname, initials, autograph, facsimile signature, photograph, video, likeness and/or endorsement in connection with the advertisement, promotion, and sale of its anti-aging products, in exchange for plaintiff’s payment to defendant of royalties equal to 3% of ‘Adjusted Gross Revenues.’”

As described in the complaint, a revised endorsement agreement this past August upped Day’s share of xLon royalties to 7 percent of adjusted gross revenues.

“During the terms of the Agreements Defendant has done no promotional appearances, with the exception of a single video,” the complaint states.

XLon seeks damages, alleging bad faith, breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. It is represented by David Bowles with Bowles Liberman & Newman.

Follow @bleonardcns
Categories / Business, Health

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.