Mary Kay Cosmetics Ltd., known as Mary Kay Canada, filed suit on February 3, 2009 against Touch of Pink Cosmetics and its owners, Amy and Scott Weber.
According to court documents, Mary Kay Canada filed the lawsuit to “remedy damages caused by Defendants’ unlawful actions in Canada.”
Mary Kay Canada claims it discovered in late 2008 (among other things) that the Defendants were interfering with Mary Kay Canada’s contracts with certain Independent Beauty Consultants (IBCs).
Sound familiar? It’s one of the claims that Mary Kay Inc. is making against the Webers in their lawsuit.
I find it amazing that it took Mary Kay Canada until late 2008 to discover this, given that Mary Kay Inc. had filed a lawsuit against the Webers in May 2008 and had apparently had the Webers on their radar screen well before that.
The Canadian lawsuit is based on trademarks registered in Canada, and therefore requires the interpretation of Canadian law.
The Webers asked for a six month continuance (delay) in their current case with Mary Kay Inc. so that they could have time to defend against both cases. They also argued that the Canadian lawsuit exists ““to intimidate the Webers and increase their cost of defense in an effort to ‘win’ by making it too expensive for the Webers to protect their business.”
The Webers request was denied.
Everything is on track for the Mary Kay Inc. case to go trial in March. We’ll keep you posted.
Wow – MK is really out to get these folks. I wonder what the legal fees are up to now for the Webers? Any money they did make through their business has to be gone now. I didn’t realize that Touch of Pink was accepting Canadian consultant products. Interesting.
Wow, my prayers go out for the Webers, and I hope they are countersuing to recoup any legal fees and punitive damages to their business. I seriously don’t know how they could decipher the basic product line US vs Canada because it is labelled for both and some of it is produced in Canada.
Sounds to me like MK is on another fishing expedition. They should have to prove their case with their own data and not the Webers business records. They are fishing for the data to try to win their case against the Webers. The court should ask MK what evidence they have and if it’s not enough to make a case, throw the case out of the legal system and make them reimburse the Webers for their costs. This is nothing more than a “frivolous lawsuit” designed to run the Webers out of business.
Is MKC trying to drain the Webers financially, in an attempt to get all the names of IBC’s (former or current) who supplied them? Isn’t that what they were after to start with?
MKC got their $$ when the product was originally purchased! Why should they care what happens after that? AAAGGGHHHH!!!!
I don’t think it’s really about the IBCs or Webers.
I figure their endgame is trying to protect the recruiting side of the business, since without it they have no way to expand and will eventually die.
Very few people sign up with a goal to sell the product, and even fewer actually suceed at it. We know they push inventory on everyone, but people have no incentive to sign up as PUCs since they can get stuff from liquidators with no contract, minimum orders or pressure to purchase/resell.
We know tons of their product is purchased by recruits with big dreams and bigger credit limits, and liquidators like TOP and return tracking on this & other sites let us know how much of that product is NOT being re-sold.
Without recruits to frontload and IBCs to pressure so SD’s can make their goals MK sales will plummet.
BC, I believe MK is already “plummeting”, they are having to buy back inventory at 90% of wholesale and IMO record numbers of IBC’s & SD’s are leaving the company and what they cannot return for 90% buyback is being sold to liquidators.
MK needs to look at the business model and get with the 21st century, they as a corpoaration are not selling on the internet (other than to IBC’s) and they are tying the hands of their IBC’s and SD’s behind their backs as far as ability to promote their business and sell their product in their own innovative ways. When Mary kay Ash started her business in the early 60’s many women did not work outside the home and home “parties” were a diversion to get these women out of the house and among other adult women.
Now, most women work and they simply do not have time for home “parties”, makeover or “pampering” sessions and if they do they are willing to pay for a “real” facial or pedicure, not one they perform on themselves.
Also the practice of recruiting PUC’s is undermining the business opportunity for those who are “in the business as a career”. The PUC’s are offering wholesale pricing to their friends and families to be able to make minimum orders and get 50% off.
The Webers and other liquidators are simply helping those who tried to make a career out of MK recoup some of their losses. MK and their antiquated business model are the real problem, they are just too greedy to realize that they are the ones running MK into the ground and out of business.
Did it ever occure to any of you that Mary Kay has an obligation to protect its IBCs or they would be in violation of their contract with the IBC.
Oh good grief, give me a break. I for one am glad that they are protecting the IBCs unlike what some other direct selling companies have in the past. Start a company, let independent representitives sell and educate about the product, product spreads by word of mouthm product become high in demand and BAM! it is in the drugstores on the shelf for anyone to purchase cheaper than the independant distributor can purchase it for but still the wholesaler is making a profit and even bigger now because thier suppliment is in national chains everywhere. Opps, did you just sign that contract last week and place a gold order yesterday. Well sorry, good luck with this! No buybacks…can’t help you.
cagaines,
How does MK suing TOP and other liquidators protect IBCs? Every one we’ve ever had on here (or on other sites) claim they haven’t been affected by these liquidators yet.
I can see how it may impact business for them in the future, but you can’t sue for “maybes”.
And FTC regulations state that they have to offer a 90% refund of the lowest wholesale price. As long as IBCs know what to ask for MK can’t leave them high and dry.
What do you think of MK claiming TOP was interfering in the IBCs contracts?
Did it ever occure to any of you that Mary Kay has an obligation to protect its IBCs or they would be in violation of their contract with the IBC.
cagaines, I guess you never read your contract, the only protection in the IBC contract is for MK not you, take a second look, MK controls every decision you could posible make regarding how & where you can sell your product, how & where you can advertise and how & where you can display your product and even how & where you can take orders.
MK is not your friend and they are not supporting your business! The real reason they are suing these liquidators is because record numbers of women are returning what product they can for 90% buyback and selling the remainder at a loss to liquidators.
That my dear, is hurting their bottom line and they don’t even know who is selling to the liquidators, they are filking a lawsuit to get their own “supposed” evidence!
MK is a sinking ship and they are just trying every dirty trick they can to keep money flowing into their coffers! They don’t care a flying BLEEP for you or any other IBC!