Goop, a company founded by actress Gwyneth Paltrow, right, is being sued by an Oregon-based company named Good. Clean. Love. The lawsuit claims Goop products, bottom left, infringe on the trademarks of Good. Clean. Love. products, top left. (Paltrow: John Nacion/STAR MAX; Wellness products via the lawsuit)
A sexual wellness company in Oregon is suing Gwyneth Paltrow‘s Goop, claiming the actress’ business infringed on copyrights by using a similar trademarks that are intentionally confusing customers.
Good Clean Love Inc., based in Eugene, filed the lawsuit March 28 in the U.S. District Court in Oregon. The company, started in 2003 by a sex-starved mother of four who wanted more natural lubricants, offers female sexual health and hygiene products.
Goop started as a newsletter by Paltrow in 2008 and expanded into selling beauty products along with other projects such as podcasts and TV shows. Last October, the company began a line of products dubbed Good. Clean. Goop. It also applied for a trademark. But, the lawsuit says, the product line is too closely associated with the Good Clean Love line and could saturate the marketplace because of its notoriety thanks to Paltrow and prior controversies.
“With the massive public interest in, and focus on, Goop’s celebrity founder and brand, Goop is known to consumers worldwide, whether or not a Goop product has ever been purchased or a Goop podcast ever listened to. According to media reports, Goop, a private company, has been valued at $250 million,” the lawsuit said.
Good. Clean. Goop. immediately garnered media attention from outlets such as New York Magazine and People, just to name a few. It offers products such as “The Pleasure Seeker Daily Chews” and “Aphrodisiac with a Twist” that purportedly help improve a woman’s sex drive. The products are similar to what Good Clean Love already sells and come up in similar searches on websites such as Amazon and Target, the lawsuit states.
Paltrow’s new line threatens to confuse customers with Good Clean Love products and threatens to “foreclose” it from expanding.
From the lawsuit:
The situation is intolerable, especially given that Goop has been criticized for marketing products and treatments that are based on pseudoscience, are harmful, and do not work; has been sued by the State of California and named in numerous class action lawsuits for making unfounded health claims about its products; and has sold new-age and questionable products in the sexual wellness space. These associations are particularly harmful to Good Clean Love, which has built its reputation and brand on safe, organic, scientific, and exhaustively-researched sexual wellness products.
Without prompt assistance from this Court, Goop’s adoption of the mark GOOD. CLEAN. GOOP threatens to overwhelm the GOOD CLEAN LOVE trademark and undermine Good Clean Love’s two decades of investment in its goodwill and reputation. Good Clean Love has no choice but to protect its rights in its GOOD CLEAN LOVE trademark
A spokesperson for Goop did not return an email from Law&Crime seeking comment but called the lawsuit “meritless” in a statement to Bloomberg Law.
“We trust consumers to distinguish Goop from the plethora of other ‘good clean’ products in the marketplace,” the statement said. “We stand behind our products as clean and are proud to have been a pioneer in the clean beauty movement.”
Good Clean Love accuses Goop of federal trademark infringement, false advertising and unfair competition. The lawsuit claims Goop’s sexual product offerings have “mocked the notion of sexual health, been criticized by medical experts and, in some cases, resulted in legal action against the company.” Among the examples the lawsuit cites are a candle called “This Smells Like My Vagina” and a 24-karat gold vibrator that costs $15,000. The lawsuit also notes the $145,000 in civil penalties the company paid the State of California for “egg-shaped stones intended to be inserted in the vagina to increase sexual energy” that allegedly didn’t work.
It also claims some of Goop’s products “contain harsh surfactants and chemicals which are known allergens and are listed on the European Union fragrance allergen annex.” Those products do not compare to the “highest verified standards of social and environmental performance, transparency, and accountability” of Good Clean Love’s merchandise.
Lawyers for Good Clean Love are asking the court to order Goop to “expressly abandon” the Good. Clean. Goop. line and pay damages.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]