Cozen O’Connor Powers GNC’s Trademark Crackdown: Lawsuit Targets Ex-Franchisee’s Michigan Stores for Brand Misuse
GNC Holdings, the powerhouse in health and wellness retail, isn’t letting go of its iconic brand without a fight. Teaming up with powerhouse firm Cozen O’Connor, the company has slapped former Michigan franchisees with a federal lawsuit, accusing them of brazenly peddling nutrition products under GNC’s trademarks long after their agreement ended—sparking a high-stakes battle over franchise loyalty and consumer trust.
The complaint, filed October 27, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:25-cv-01677), names Hussein Hilal Bittar and Hilal Bittar as defendants. Based in Dearborn, Michigan, the Bittars operated GNC-franchised stores at 4231 Calhoun Street until GNC pulled the plug on their agreement earlier this year amid performance issues and contractual disputes. But instead of shutting down and paying up, the suit alleges, the duo rebranded their outlets as “Bittar Nutrition” while slyly incorporating GNC logos, signage, and product displays—creating a web of confusion for shoppers hunting for genuine GNC goods.
At the core of GNC’s claims are breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The filing details how the Bittars ignored post-termination mandates: forking over $150,000 in liquidated damages, surrendering all confidential supplier lists and marketing materials, and immediately scrubbing every trace of GNC’s federally registered marks—like the bold “GNC” script and green eagle emblem—from their shelves and websites. GNC argues this defiance not only dilutes its $4 billion brand but risks fooling loyal customers into thinking they’re buying authorized vitamins and supplements, potentially exposing the company to liability for subpar knockoffs.
Cozen O’Connor’s intellectual property squad, led by veterans like Melanie A. Miller—who boasts three decades in trademark wars—is steering the charge from their Philadelphia hub, a stone’s throw from GNC’s Pittsburgh headquarters. The firm’s full-service IP practice, handling everything from global registrations to courtroom slugfests, positions it perfectly to dismantle the Bittars’ operations. GNC seeks a permanent injunction to halt the infringement, plus hefty damages, attorney’s fees, and an accounting of ill-gotten gains from the alleged scheme.
This isn’t GNC’s first rodeo in protecting its turf. The retailer, which boasts over 4,000 stores nationwide and a booming e-commerce arm, has a track record of swift enforcement against poachers—from Amazon counterfeiters to rogue suppliers. The franchise model, a key growth engine since the 1980s, relies on ironclad post-exit clauses to prevent ex-partners from cannibalizing sales. Termination here stemmed from the Bittars’ failure to meet sales quotas and adhere to quality standards, per the suit, underscoring how economic pressures in the cutthroat wellness sector can fracture partnerships.
Legal watchers are nodding in approval at GNC’s aggressive stance. “Franchisors like GNC can’t afford complacency— one unchecked rogue store erodes market share and invites copycats,” says IP attorney Sarah Jenkins of a rival firm, who reviewed the filing. On LinkedIn, franchise pros are chiming in, with one Michigan retailer posting, “This is a wake-up call: Exit gracefully or face the brand’s full wrath.” No response yet from the Bittars’ camp, but their counsel could counter with claims of unfair termination or free speech in rebranding.
For everyday Americans, this saga cuts to the heart of retail reliability. In a market flooded with supplements promising everything from immunity boosts to weight-loss miracles—worth $50 billion annually—trademark suits like this safeguard against scams that could harm health or wallets. Michigan consumers, especially in Dearborn’s diverse communities reliant on trusted nutrition outlets, stand to benefit from clearer lines between legit GNC hauls and imposters. Economically, it bolsters franchise ecosystems, where small operators thrive under big-brand umbrellas but must play by the rules; a win for GNC could deter similar holdouts nationwide, stabilizing jobs in the $1 trillion U.S. health sector.
As discovery unfolds in Pittsburgh’s federal courthouse, expect heated motions over injunctions and audits. GNC’s Cozen-backed push signals zero tolerance for brand betrayal, reminding ex-franchisees that the wellness empire’s vigilance is as enduring as its protein shakes. This case could set precedents for how courts weigh loyalty oaths against entrepreneurial grit in America’s franchise-fueled economy.
By Sam Michael
Follow and subscribe to us for push notifications on the latest trademark battles and franchise news—stay protected in the world of business law!
SEO Tags: Cozen O’Connor GNC lawsuit, trademark infringement GNC franchisee, GNC Holdings v Bittar, Michigan nutrition stores trademark suit, breach of contract franchise termination, Lanham Act GNC claims, Dearborn GNC infringement, IP enforcement wellness retail