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?
In a new legal filing last week, Give Back Beauty fired back at Revlon’s recent federal lawsuit, which accused the smaller company of working with four ex-Revlon execs to “sabotage” the company’s decades-old fragrance partnership with the Spears.
Revlon’s case called it a “carefully planned and executed” plot to steal the lucrative relationship. But in its response on Friday, Give Back said Revlon was selling that “false narrative” of espionage and corporate raiding simply because it was angry that it had been beaten by a competitor.
“Revlon asks the court to accept that tale as the only possible explanation for why Ms. Spears decided to reject Revlon in favor of GBB,” the company’s lawyers write. “Revlon’s 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’s 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’s market share.”
In 2004, at the peak of her powers, Spears signed a deal with Revlon’s Elizabeth Arden to develop branded fragrances and other cosmetics. When she released “Curious” 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, “Curious” 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.
Revlon 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 “acted as a double-agent” – working with Give Back while ostensibly negotiating with Britney’s team to renew her Revlon deal.
“Revlon and Elizabeth Arden were completely unaware that Revlon’s own team was actively sabotaging one of their most valuable licensing relationships,” the company’s lawyers claimed at the time.
Though 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 “all the best.”A spokesperson for Britney did not return a request for comment on the dispute.
Earlier 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 “continuing to misuse Revlon’s trade secrets” and that “this wrongful conduct must stop.”
With Friday’s filing, Give Back responded to that motion — arguing there was no need for any kind of restraining order over Revlon’s “baseless” accusations and that the rival can’t show it will suffer the kind of “irreparable” harm required for such a drastic order.
“The court should not countenance plaintiffs’ thinly-veiled attempt to prevent GBB from safeguarding Ms. Spears’ valuable fragrance brand,” the company’s lawyers write. “Revlon’s Motion should be denied in its entirety.”
In making that argument, Give Back sharply denied many of the lawsuit’s allegations. On the “double agent” claim, it said the ex-employee had been “unaware that GBB was negotiating a deal with Britney Brands and had no involvement in negotiating the agreement.” It also denied that the staffers had stolen any proprietary information or that Give Back had used any such data.
The real purpose of Revlon’s request for the injunction? Attorneys for the defendants says it’s “entirely vindictive” – aimed at “thwarting Ms. Spears’ decision to hire GBB” and “keeping the option for the public to buy Britney Spears-branded fragrances off of the market so long as Revlon is not the distributor.”
A spokesperson for Revlon did not immediately return a request for comment.
In addition to Give Back itself, the lawsuit names the four employees — Vanessa Kidd, Dominick Romeo, Reid Mulvihill and Ashley Fass. They are all represented by the same legal team that filed Friday’s motion.
