Starbucks Sued Again Over Alleged Coffee-Flavored Lip Balm Copying
U.S. coffee chain giant Starbucks is facing yet another copyright infringement lawsuit, the third time the company has been accused of stealing ideas for coffee-flavored lipstick and lip gloss.
U.S. coffee chain giant Starbucks is again facing a copyright infringement lawsuit, the third time the company has been accused of stealing ideas for coffee-flavored lip balms and lip glosses. The plaintiffs in the suit are Los Angeles-based Balmuccino, whose leadership team includes relatives of TV doctor Mehmet Oz.
On August 16, 2024, Balmuccino filed its lawsuit in Manhattan federal court. The lawsuit followed an earlier version dismissed by a Seattle federal judge on procedural grounds in July 2023, the second time the case has been dismissed. Starbucks, which is based in Seattle, has not yet responded to the lawsuit.
Balmuccino claims that the company has been developing coffee-flavored lip balms since 2016 and presented prototypes of those products and other confidential information in October 2018 at a meeting at Starbucks' New York office. According to the company, the meeting was arranged by Dr. Oz, who proposed a potential collaboration after contacting Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz.
Balmuccino accuses Starbucks of stealing a lipstick concept it had already developed when it launched the “S'mores Frappuccino Sip Kit” in April 2019. The kit contains lipstick and lip gloss in four colors, “Campfire Spark,” “Chocolicious Bliss,” ” Graham Glam” and ‘Marshmallow Glow’.
Balmuccino claimed that Starbucks had not compensated it for the sale of the Sip Kit, so it sought specific and punitive damages, and pointed out that under New York law, the statute of limitations can be tolled for certain plaintiffs when the plaintiff files a lawsuit in the wrong court and the court decides that it lacks jurisdiction, and therefore this lawsuit was not time-barred.
The case, Balmuccino LLC v. Starbucks, No. 24-06214, is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Disclaimer: The views in this article are from the original author and do not represent the views or position of Hawk Insight. The content of the article is for reference, communication and learning only, and does not constitute investment advice. If it involves copyright issues, please contact us for deletion.