Gwyneth Paltrow-founded Goop hit with trademark lawsuit over its sexual well being merchandise

GCL says it filed swimsuit “to prevent the calamitous situation where a junior trademark user, with substantial economic power, saturates the marketplace with a trademark that threatens to overtake a smaller senior user’s mark and usurp the senior user’s reputation and goodwill.”

GCL alleges Goop Inc—which launched in 2008—is deliberately utilizing the “Good. Clean. Goop” mark in reference to a number of sexual well being merchandise to order to learn from GCL’s already established “Good Clean Love” trademark for comparable merchandise. Goop’s allegedly infringing merchandise embrace “The Pleasure Seeker Daily Chews,” in line with the criticism filed within the US District Courtroom for the District of Oregon.

Based in 2003, GCL says it has spent over 20 years constructing its model as a trusted supplier of feminine sexual and hygiene merchandise. GCL says it makes use of patented Bio-Match expertise to develop its merchandise and has used its marks for these merchandise for over ten years.

GCL alleges Goop sells a number of merchandise utilizing the “Good. Clean. Goop” mark that comprise identified harsh chemical compounds. GCL asserts that Goop’s alleged infringement of its marks is more likely to mislead shoppers into believing that GCL’s merchandise additionally comprise dangerous substances.

GCL additionally asserts that customers are more likely to imagine Goop’s product are clear when the aren’t. In contrast, GCL asserts within the criticism that its marks have to return “signify that a product is truly clean.”

GCL says it might’t compete with Goop’s market saturation and asserts that the alleged infringement threatens its potential to increase into different product strains. GCL additionally says Goop’s allegedly infringing marks are confusingly comparable in sound, look, and total industrial impression as a result of the 2 dominant phrases are similar.

“The use of the GOOP house mark does not negate the similarity between the marks, but aggravates it, because use of Goop may create reverse confusion by leading consumers to believe that Goop, not Good Clean Love, is the source of Good Clean Love’s products,” the criticism says.

In response to the criticism, Goop makes use of phrases similar to “naked” which has similarities to a GCL-owned trademark registration for “Almost Naked.” GCL additionally alleges Goop’s actions are more likely to trigger shopper confusion at main retailers together with Amazon and Target as their merchandise “directly collide” on prime on-line search outcomes.

GCL says Goop is conscious of its alleged infringement as a result of Goop as soon as requested a pattern of GCL’s lubricant product to doubtlessly promote through Goop’s on-line market.

GCL additionally says it despatched a stop and desist letter to Goop relating to the “confusingly similar” mark, and the following day, Goop “began to flood the market with announcements” of its merchandise bearing its “Good. Clean. Goop” mark, the criticism says.

The criticism asserts 5 claims together with federal claims for trademark infringement, false promoting, unfair competitors, and comparable claims below Oregon regulation.

GCL is looking for preliminary and everlasting injunctions prohibiting the alleged infringementement, a courtroom order requiring Goop to “expressly abandon” its trademark software for “Good. Clean. Goop,” damages, attorneys’ charges, and prices.

Goop didn’t instantly reply to a request for remark.

Cozen O’Connor represents GCL.

Subscribe to the brand new Fortune CEO Weekly Europe e-newsletter to get nook workplace insights on the most important enterprise tales in Europe. Sign up without spending a dime.