Gwyneth Paltrow's Health and Beauty Company, Goop, Sued For "Reverse Confusion" Trademark Infringement

Last week, Good Clean Love, Inc. (GCL), an Oregon-based woman’s personal hygiene and health company, filed a Trademark infringement lawsuit in Federal District Court against Gwyneth Paltrow’s beauty company, Goop. In its complaint, GCL asserts multiple claims, including federal trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and analogous claims under Oregon state law.

The root of the dispute is that Goop is allegedly using a tagline that is confusingly similar to GCL’s house brand. GCL says it has used “Good Clean Love” for its line of sexual health products for over 20 years, while Goop has used “Good. Clean. Goop.” for its similar sexual health supplement for a much shorter time period.

In order to determine whether there is a “likelihood of consumer confusion,” Courts look at not only the similarity of the trademarks themselves, but also the similarity of the underlying products. Trademarks do not need to be identical - it is enough if they are similar in sound, appearance, meaning, or commercial impression. If, overall, there is a likelihood of confusion, whoever used the trademark in US commerce first, has superior rights, and can stop the junior user from continuing their use of the infringing trademark.

The Goop case is a good example of a “Reverse Confusion” trademark infringement, where a newer bigger company comes onto the market and overwhelms the trademark and commercial standing of the older company, who actually has superior rights, despite being smaller.

“Reverse Confusion” occurs when a newer, bigger company comes onto the market and overwhelms the commercial standing of an older, smaller company’s brand.

In addition to impacting their sales, GCL worries that the confusion will damage their reputation. They allege that Goop uses known harmful chemicals in its products, whereas GCL’s products are “truly clean.” If consumers start to think that Goop produces the GCL’s product, consumers will also believe that GCL’s products contain these harmful ingredients.

Goop, on the other hand, called the lawsuit “meritless.” Interestingly, according to GCL, the day after Goop received GCL’s pre-suit cease and desist letter, they doubled down with their use of the infringing tagline, flooding the market. We will see if this is predictive of how Goop defends their position.

Filing this law suit does not come without risks for GCL. Because their house trademark is comprised of basic words in a somewhat descriptive order (“good”, “clean” and “love”), it could be deemed generic. This would leave them at risk of a viable counter-attack by Goop, which would be a devastating loss for the company. The reality is, there may come a time when a trademark owner finds themselves in a defensive position. The stronger a trademark, the easier it is to defend, which ideally will inform a company owner during the process of choosing their brand name.

Stemer Law’s Colorado IP Troll Case Heats Up, As Judge Issues Stark Warning

A few months ago I wrote about a Law360 article that quoted me calling my adversaries “trolls” to a Judge in Federal Court.

Those cases are still moving along, somehow.

In case you missed it - over the summer, a California bong-maker, GS Holistic LLC, filed nearly 50 identical cases in the District of Colorado, alleging that dozens of Colorado smoke shops were intentionally selling counterfeit versions of their bongs. In true IP-Troll fashion, the mass of complaints filed by a Florida law firm were copy and pasted, with big scary words intended to intimidate Defendants into settling, but without any meaningful facts or allegations.

Well, Federal Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter caught wind of these robo-filed cases and issued a strongly-worded Order to Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s lawyer to show up in person to assure the Court that they have a legitimate basis for their cases and that they plan to litigate according to the rules. We all gathered in court for the September hearing, where things seemed to get back on track.

That did not last.

Fast forward to January 12, 2024, after Plaintiff failed to follow local rules, federal rules, and deadlines, the Judge issued another biting order. In the order, which is the subject of the latest Law360 article about the cases, he called out Plaintiff for their “chaotic” prosecution, saying he has “no confidence” they can successfully work on this case load. He issued a stark warning too - if they continue their violations, he may end up dismissing all of their cases.

While the January 12 order did indeed “chide” Plaintiff, as the Law360 headlines says, it is my opinion that it also shows the the District of Colorado and Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter's commitment to finding a fair result for all litigants, in spite of the complications that these mass filings have created. As I am quoted as saying in the Law360 article - "the record is clear that the plaintiff has been given a multitude of chances to course correct, but they continue to flounder.”

Not as blistering as calling them trolls on the record in open court, but it is still the truth … and what I said about my clients is also the truth, "…the Defendants, as small business owners, are an important part of Colorado's culture and economy and will not be cast aside."

Stemer Law's Sarah Stemer Quoted In Law360 Article, In Response to IP Trolls

The article entitled ‘We’re Not Trolls,’ Bong Co. That Filed 850 IP Suits Tells Judge” can be accessed here.

Indeed, a Bong Company filed about 850 federal trademark infringement and counterfeiting cases in various districts around the country, including 45 in the District of Colorado. Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, both Stemer PA and the District of Colorado caught wind of the mass of filings. In response, Federal Magistrate Judge Neureiter issued an Order to Show Cause admonishing that problems seen in other similar filings “will not be tolerated in the District of Colorado.” The Order also set a hearing requiring Plaintiff’s counsel and a corporate representative of Plaintiff to appear in person, which took place last Tuesday.

Stemer, PA represents two of the Defendants in two different cases, so I appeared in person at the Federal Courthouse in downtown Denver. First, the Plaintiff’s attorney took the podium to explain their position. Notably, he claimed he had never heard of what an IP troll is, then proceeded to call the owners of the mom-and-pop smoke shop Defendants, who maybe sold a handful of counterfeit products on accident, “scofflaws” and “ne-er do wells” who are part of a “criminal enterprise.”

In response, I took the podium and explained that, among other things, “filing a complaint with copy-paste complaint allegations and then robo-filing them is pretty much the definition of what a troll does," which was reported in the Law360 article.

I meant every word.

I agree that it was, as another Defense attorney said as he left the courtroom, “one of the funnest days in court I have ever had.” Joking aside, these are serious matters for defendants and it is my hope is that we are back on track to litigate toward a justifiable result. While it is our fundamental belief that everyone should have equal access to the legal system, no one should be allowed to abuse it.