Good Clean Love Inc. is suing Gwyneth Paltrow’s company that specializes in female and health hygiene products for allegedly selling products using a confusingly similar trademark and creating a likelihood of reverse confusion.
GCL says it filed suit “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 intentionally using the “Good. Clean. Goop” mark in connection with a sexual health product in order to benefit from GCL’s already established “Good Clean Love” trademark for sexual health products. Goop’s allegedly infringing product is called “The Pleasure Seeker Daily Chews,” according to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Oregon.
Founded in 2003, GCL says it has spent over 20 years building its brand as a trusted provider of female sexual and hygiene products. GCL says it uses patented Bio-Match technology to develop its products and has used its marks for those products for over ten years.
GCL alleges Goop sells multiple products using the “Good. Clean. Goop” mark that contain known harsh chemicals. GCL asserts that Goop’s alleged infringement of its marks is likely to mislead consumers into believing that GCL’s products also contain harmful substances.
GCL also asserts that consumers are likely to believe Goop’s products are clean when the aren’t. By contrast, GCL asserts in the complaint that its marks have to come to “signify that a product is truly clean.”
GCL says it can’t compete with Goop’s market saturation and asserts that the alleged infringement threatens its ability to expand into other product lines. GCL also says Goop’s allegedly infringing mark is confusingly similar in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression because the two dominant terms are identical.
“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 complaint says.
Goop called the complaint “meritless,” in a statement provided to Bloomberg Law, and rejected the notion of consumer confusion. “We trust consumers to distinguish goop from the plethora of other ‘good clean’ products in the marketplace,” a company spokesperson said. “We stand behind our products as clean and are proud to have been a pioneer in the clean beauty movement.”
According to the complaint, Goop uses terms such as “naked” which is similar to a GCL-owned trademark registration for “Almost Naked.” GCL also alleges Goop’s actions are likely to cause consumer confusion at major retailers including Amazon and Target as their products “directly collide” on top online search results.
GCL says Goop is aware of its alleged infringement because Goop once requested a sample of GCL’s lubricant product to potentially sell via Goop’s online marketplace.
GCL also says it sent a cease and desist letter to Goop regarding the “confusingly similar” mark, and the next day, Goop “began to flood the market with announcements” of its products bearing its “Good. Clean. Goop” mark, the complaint says.
The complaint asserts five claims, including federal claims for trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and similar claims under Oregon law.
GCL is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the alleged infringement, a court order requiring Goop to “expressly abandon” its trademark application for “Good. Clean. Goop,” damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
Cozen O’Connor represents GCL.
The case is Good Clean Love Inc. v. Goop Inc., D. Or., No. 6:24-cv-00525, complaint 3/28/24
