A maker of coffee-scented lip balms brewed up a new lawsuit against Starbucks for allegedly stealing its idea after the company’s first complaint against the java giant was dismissed by a California judge.
Balmuccino, a California-based company with ties to Dr. Oz, took the fight to Seattle-based Starbucks’ doorstep by filing the lawsuit in a Western Washington District Court last week.
According to the lawsuit, Oz — the Republican candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania — introduced his sister-in-law, the actress Samantha Lemole, to then-CEO Howard Schultz for a pitch meeting in New York in 2017.
Schultz allegedly connected Lemole with Starbucks’ head of product development and senior vice president Mesh Gelman, but a deal was never made.
However, in 2019 Starbucks launched s’mores Frappuccinos lip glosses in Chocolicious Bliss, Marshmallow Glow, Campfire Spark and Graham Glam flavors, according to the lawsuit.
“Starbucks misappropriated trade secrets to create their competing product,” said Eduardo Martorell, the legal representative of Balmuccino. “They launched a nationwide marketing campaign to sell the product.”
Balmuccino representatives had shared several details with the Starbucks team, including the creation process and names of its material suppliers and manufacturers in the 2017 meeting, the lawsuit claims.
Gelman left the company soon after that meeting and the following year Balmuccino learned through its suppliers that Starbucks had reached out to them regarding coffee-flavored lip balms, the suit said. The product’s details and specifications were apparently similar to the ones Balmuccino was hoping to launch.
In 2019, Balmuccino filed its initial lawsuit in Los Angeles, where the company has its headquarters, but the court threw out the case.
“The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles ruled that there was a lack of jurisdiction over Starbucks in California,” Martorell said in a statement.
An appeal also proved fruitless. Balmuccino’s latest filing in Washington state seeks $75,000 in damages.
Starbucks did not respond to a request for comment.
[Written in collaboration with other media outlets with information from the following sources]
