The Motion for Expedited Discovery states:

Defendant HealtH20 Products, LLC ("HealtH20") contracted with M. D. Anderson to conduct limited in vitro testing of an "enhanced" water beverage comprised of HealtH20's purported Archaea Active formula and City of Houston tap water. (See Declaration of William Hagans attached hereto ("Hagans Decl."), ¶3, Ex. A). Such testing was limited to testing the potential anti-inflammatory properties of the water beverage as provided to M. D. Anderson (inflammation is known to be an issue faced by cancer patients). Id. Indeed, the testing conducted at M. D. Anderson was so limited and preliminary in nature that it rendered inconclusive results—the tests showed that the beverage, as tested by M. D. Anderson, may have some anti-inflammatory properties, but also, that the beverage may act as an inflammatory enhancer. Id. The report generated by M. D. Anderson specifically stated that further testing would need to be conducted. Id.

Despite the limited and preliminary nature of the testing conducted at M. D. Anderson, Defendants have been claiming that what they, and their cadre of pyramid-based sales people are selling under the brand name Evolv, is, among other things, "backed by research" conducted at M. D. Anderson. (Hagans Decl., ¶4, Ex. B.). These statements are false for at least two unequivocal reasons: (1) Defendants, by their own admission, are not selling the product as tested by M. D. Anderson—M. D. Anderson tested the purported Archaea Active formula as combined with City of Houston tap water, whereas in their Answers to Plaintiff's Complaint, both Defendants claim that the product they are selling is not combined with City of Houston tap water; and (2) any testing conducted by M. D. Anderson was not comprehensive or for that matter, conclusive, as Defendants would have the public believe. (Compare Hagans Decl., ¶3, Ex. A with Defendant Evolv's Answer, Doc. #14, and Defendant HealtH20's Answer and Counterclaims, Doc. #13).

Plaintiff has gathered substantial evidence of Defendants' unlawful use of Plaintiff's M. D. ANDERSON Marks, including video obtained from such well-known Web sites as YouTube. However, Plaintiff has learned that several of those videos have been removed. (Hagans Decl., ¶5.) Plaintiff believes that Defendants may be responsible for the removal of such videos and that Defendants may be in the process of destroying those videos and other evidence relevant to Plaintiff's trademark infringement and related claims.
more to come.....

Soapboxmom