{"id":2757,"date":"2024-09-25T17:00:30","date_gmt":"2024-09-25T17:00:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/britney-spears-perfume-lawsuit-rival-denies-revlons-accusations\/"},"modified":"2024-09-25T17:00:30","modified_gmt":"2024-09-25T17:00:30","slug":"britney-spears-perfume-lawsuit-rival-denies-revlons-accusations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/britney-spears-perfume-lawsuit-rival-denies-revlons-accusations\/","title":{"rendered":"Britney Spears Perfume Lawsuit: Rival Denies Revlon’s Accusations"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tDid an upstart rival steal Britney Spears<\/a> and her lucrative fragrance business from Revlon? Or is the cosmetics behemoth just upset that the star took her business elsewhere?<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a new legal filing last week, Give Back Beauty fired back at Revlon\u2019s recent federal lawsuit, which accused the smaller company of working with four ex-Revlon execs to \u201csabotage\u201d the company\u2019s decades-old fragrance partnership with the Spears.<\/p>\n

\n\tRevlon\u2019s case called it a \u201ccarefully planned and executed\u201d plot to steal the lucrative relationship. But in its response on Friday, Give Back said Revlon was selling that \u201cfalse narrative\u201d of espionage and corporate raiding simply because it was angry that it had been beaten by a competitor.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cRevlon asks the court to accept that tale as the only possible explanation for why Ms. Spears decided to reject Revlon in favor of GBB,\u201d the company\u2019s lawyers write. \u201cRevlon\u2019s motion is more accurately an anticompetitive ruse to damage a competitor because Revlon, weakened in the market by its recent bankruptcy, cannot compete fairly with GBB, and seeks to frustrate GBB\u2019s transition of Britney Brands, at the same time, sending a warning about future competition from an international rival that poses a growing threat to Revlon\u2019s market share.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn 2004, at the peak of her powers, Spears signed a deal with Revlon\u2019s Elizabeth Arden to develop branded fragrances and other cosmetics. When she released \u201cCurious\u201d later that year, it quickly became the top selling perfume of the year and reportedly pulled in more than $100 million in sales. By 2013, \u201cCurious\u201d had reportedly sold more than 500 million bottles and the overall Spears-Arden partnership, featuring many other scents, was earning $30 million a year in sales.<\/p>\n

\n\tRevlon sued last month, claiming its own staffers had destroyed that business by jumping ship to Give Back and taking the Britney account with them. Accusing them of stealing trade secrets and breaching their contracts, the case even claimed that one exec had \u201cacted as a double-agent\u201d \u2013 working with Give Back while ostensibly negotiating with Britney\u2019s team to renew her Revlon deal.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cRevlon and Elizabeth Arden were completely unaware that Revlon\u2019s own team was actively sabotaging one of their most valuable licensing relationships,\u201d the company\u2019s lawyers claimed at the time. <\/p>\n

\n\tThough the case centers on the Spears account, she is not named as a defendant nor accused of any wrongdoing; at the time, a Revlon spokesman said the company wished her \u201call the best.\u201dA spokesperson for Britney did not return a request for comment on the dispute.<\/p>\n

\n\tEarlier this month, Revlon asked for an immediate injunction that would sharply restrict Give Back and the ex-employees while the case plays out. It claimed the defendants were \u201ccontinuing to misuse Revlon\u2019s trade secrets\u201d and that \u201cthis wrongful conduct must stop.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tWith Friday\u2019s filing, Give Back responded to that motion \u2014 arguing there was no need for any kind of restraining order over Revlon\u2019s \u201cbaseless\u201d accusations and that the rival can\u2019t show it will suffer the kind of \u201cirreparable\u201d harm required for such a drastic order.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThe court should not countenance plaintiffs\u2019 thinly-veiled attempt to prevent GBB from safeguarding Ms. Spears\u2019 valuable fragrance brand,\u201d the company\u2019s lawyers write. \u201cRevlon\u2019s Motion should be denied in its entirety.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn making that argument, Give Back sharply denied many of the lawsuit\u2019s allegations. On the \u201cdouble agent\u201d claim, it said the ex-employee had been \u201cunaware that GBB was negotiating a deal with Britney Brands and had no involvement in negotiating the agreement.\u201d It also denied that the staffers had stolen any proprietary information or that Give Back had used any such data.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe real purpose of Revlon\u2019s request for the injunction? Attorneys for the defendants says it\u2019s \u201centirely vindictive\u201d \u2013 aimed at \u201cthwarting Ms. Spears\u2019 decision to hire GBB\u201d and \u201ckeeping the option for the public to buy Britney Spears-branded fragrances off of the market so long as Revlon is not the distributor.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tA spokesperson for Revlon did not immediately return a request for comment.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn addition to Give Back itself, the lawsuit names the four employees \u2014 Vanessa Kidd, Dominick Romeo, Reid Mulvihill and Ashley Fass. They are all represented by the same legal team that filed Friday\u2019s motion.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Did an upstart rival steal Britney Spears and her lucrative fragrance business from Revlon? Or is the cosmetics behemoth just upset that the star took her business elsewhere? […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2758,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[3570,320,1242,303,3265,3569,701,321],"class_list":["post-2757","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-accusations","tag-britney","tag-denies","tag-lawsuit","tag-perfume","tag-revlons","tag-rival","tag-spears"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2757","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2757"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2757\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2758"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}