Mary Kay Canada Sues Touch of Pink Cosmetics

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.

Remember Those Lawsuits Against MK Liquidators I Mentioned in December?

You surely remember my post on December 6, 2008 regarding the fact that Mary Kay Inc was targeting online resellers of Mary Kay products with lawsuits.

As you know, I take seriously the privacy of the sources of my information. Unless they give me permission to name them, I don’t and don’t want to.

Unfortunately, one of the impending lawsuits I was informed of personally became public with its official filing in late November 2008.

The lawsuit against Mary Kay Inventory Liquidators Sharon & Dennis Lilly is similar to the lawsuit against Touch of Pink.

Sharon Lilly became a Mary Kay consultant in January of 2006. Mary Kay Inc alleges that Ms. Lilly was advertising and selling Mary Kay products online and sent her a letter demanding she stop. When she didn’t, MK terminated her consultant agreement on May 17, 2006. Apparently that’s when Sharon Lilly opened her online store, www.sharonscosmeticshoppe.com

However, according the the complaint filed, Sharon’s husband Dennis signed up to be a Mary Kay consultant on May 26, 2006, allegedly so Sharon could continue buying MK products at a discount. It took Mary Kay Inc nearly two years to figure this out: they didn’t terminate Mr. Lilly’s consultant agreement until April 30, 2008. Now, Mary Kay Inc calls Mr. Lilly’s act of signing up as a consultant “fraud” which is pretty strong language.

The main accusation in the lawsuit against the Lillys is that they interfere with Mary Kay Inc’s business model by soliciting consultants to sell their product to them, the Lillys, rather than an actual “end user,” as they claim Touch of Pink does as well.

Mary Kay Inc also claims unlawful use of their trademarks and that the defendants confuse consumers into thinking that they are purchasing guaranteed Mary Kay products from an “authorize” Mary Kay consultant. But how confused do you need to be to think you’re buy from a Mary Kay consultant when the Lillys’ site clearly displays a disclaimer that they aren’t affiliated with Mary Kay cosmetics?  (Hint: pretty darn confused. Step away from the TimeWise.)

So far, the Lilly’s have been subpoened and we await their depositions and the continuing proceedings in this case.

Like I told you in December, Mary Kay Inc is apparently going after the Inventory Liquidators online, whether they’re selling on eBay or from the own site. No doubt other lawsuits will be formally filed in the future.

Here’s the entire lawsuit filed against the Lillys for your reading enjoyment:

Mary Kay Inc., Plaintiff  v. Sharon K. Lilly and Dennis C. Lilly, Defendants 

Please note that the lawsuit document is over 2 MB — it’s large, so it will take a few extra moments to download and appear on your computer.

Mary Kay Inc Named as Defendant in New Lawsuit

Mary Kay Inc. finds itself on the other end of a lawsuit, this time listed as a defendant is a case filed on February 10, 2009.

Mary Kay Inc. is being sued by former employee Sandra Garza, who was fired by Mary Kay in September 2008. The lawsuit also names Tammy Gray, a Mary Kay manager, as codefendant.

The suit seeks a “declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief to secure the rights of
Garza.”

It’s an interesting case, with Garza claiming national origin and race discrimination as well as age discrimination and retaliation.

Here’s the entire filing so you can read the details:

garzavmarykayinc

Why Didn’t Mary Kay Inc. Warn Liquidators Before Suing?

Why is it that instead of issuing a “cease and desist” order or a similar warning to the people selling on eBay, that Mary Kay Inc. just went ahead and filed lawsuits against these sellers?

Why didn’t they give these people a chance to stop their selling if they wanted to?

Why didn’t Mary Kay Inc. use the VERO program set up by eBay to address the alleged violations of their trademark and copyright? If sellers were violating these guidelines, set up to protect companies, then Mary Kay Inc. can simply file notice with eBay and the offending listings are removed. Apparently what Mary Kay Inc. is alleging is beyond VERO. If sellers aren’t using copyrighted or trademarked material or images in their listings and not trying to sell counterfeit products, then there isn’t much to dispute with eBay.

But instead of giving these sellers a warning, Mary Kay Inc. brought down the hammer.

If Mary Kay Inc. discovers that their active consultants and directors are selling products to those who then sell it on eBay, then what? Do they terminate those consultants and directors? Do those people then become examples, used to scare future recruits into behaving?

And what responsibility do those buying excess inventory for resell have to check out the person selling it to them? If there were an underground counterfeit TimeWise factory, maybe that would be reasonable. But as it is, all they know is that it is someone who was probably at one time in Mary Kay. Why should those sellers be required to find out if that person is active? Mary Kay Inc. can claim that by purchasing inventory from their active consultants that resellers are interfering with their business. But actually…they may be helping MK’s business: after all, with more room on their shelves, these consultants can now buy more merchandise directly from the company and keep the inventory loading machine rolling.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, no question.

Former Mary Kay Executives Sued CEO Richard Rogers

It’s true.

The case was filed in 2003.

A reader sent me a link regarding the suit:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119468614.html

This lawsuit was settled. Rogers also filed a counterclaim.

If You Sell Mary Kay Products on eBay…Beware!

Just wanted to post this to increase the likelihood that resellers and liquidators will see this. I have posted this on eBay as well.

Mary Kay Inc Files Lawsuits Against Numerous eBay Sellers of Mary Kay Products

Dateline: December 4, 2008

If you sell Mary Kay products on eBay…beware! Mary Kay Inc. may be coming after you.

In the last week, several eBay sellers of Mary Kay products have been served with lawsuits.

You may also be aware of the ongoing lawsuit that Mary Kay Inc. filed against Touch of Pinks Cosmetics, and eBay seller who also runs a separate online store selling Mary Kay products.

The Mary Kay consultants who spend their days policing the listings on eBay and turning Mary Kay sellers in to Mary Kay Inc. are surely gloating and celebrating now. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence that these sellers have done anything wrong. And especially given that Mary Kay Inc. has yet to win any judgment against seller Touch of Pink, these additional lawsuits seems a little premature and aggressive.

If you sell Mary Kay products on eBay, I would urge you to make sure you be careful — whatever that may be, I suppose, at this point. Mary Kay Inc. is out for records from these sellers to see if they are purchasing products from active consultants and directors in the company. They assert that this is interfering in their business.

We will have to wait to see how this all plays out, but either way, it is vitally important to anyone liquidating all those excess Mary Kay products on eBay, and for that matter, other sellers of similar products.

MK Inc. Thinks Touch of Pink is Bad? This MK Reseller is Stealing All of Their Copyrighted Pictures!

I’ve been trying to get the word out to resellers of Mary Kay that MK Inc. is filing hundreds of lawsuits against liquidators.

In doing so, I stumbled across this Mary Kay reseller who is advertising on eBay:

http://www.pinkbargains.com/

They have a fancy store that’s much more professional looking than Touch of Pink.

And ALL the photos in their store appear to be Mary Kay Inc.’s copyrighted photos! It looks like they’re stealing them off the Mary Kay website!

Not only that, but ALL the descriptions of the products are copied verbatim from Mary Kay’s website!

Here’s someone who is REALLY violating Mary Kay’s trademark and copyright. Wonder if they’ve gotten slapped with a lawsuit yet?

Latest Documents Filed in the Touch of Pink Lawsuit

Mary Kay Inc. wants to depose (interogate) Amy Weber again, according to documents filed in the Mary Kay Inc. versus Touch of Pink Cosmetics lawsuit.

Amy Weber traveled to Dallas and gave her deposition to Mary Kay Inc. on August, 28, 2008. The main purpose of that interrogation was for Mary Kay Inc. to “learn more about Defendents’ document management practices, the location and storage of their electronic data, and their document collection and production procedures.”

Mary Kay Inc. claims that, “as expected,” they discovered numerous deficiencies in the Defendants’ document production during and after the deposition. They claim the Webers failed to look for and produce many significant documents that Mary Kay Inc. wanted. They also claim that the Webers continued to destroy documents and emails after Mary Kay filed the lawsuit.

Mary Kay Inc. asked the Webers to correct these supposed deficiencies, and the Webers did, providing Mary Kay Inc. with about 70,000 pages of emails and relevant documents.

But the deposition that Amy Weber gave in August was in her “corporate capacity.” Mary Kay Inc. now wants to depose Amy Weber in an individual capacity. The Webers’ attorneys are arguing that such a deposition would be a duplication of the previous deposition, among other things.

In fact, the Webers’ attorneys say in this latest filing, the Webers produced over 140,000 pages of documents after this August deposition and many of those documents are applicable to this second deposition request.

Mary Kay Inc’s lawyers flew to Illinois, where the Webers live, in October and deposed Scott Weber and four employees of the Webers, including Amy Webers mother. At that time, they could have, but didn’t, ask to depose Amy Weber while they were in Illinois.

Noooooooooo.

As the Webers’ attoneys say, coming to Illinois to take depositions, not interviewing Amy, then asking to talk to her a month later is simply Mary Kay Inc. trying to “create a cost burden on the Webers.”

If the court grants Mary Kay Inc’s request for the second deposition of Amy Weber, her lawyers are requesting that Mary Kay Inc. pay her expenses, wherever the deposition takes place.

Stay tuned….we’ll keep you updated on how this case proceeds, as we have done from the start.

Another Liquidator Sued by Mary Kay Inc.

I just received an email from yet another Mary Kay inventory liquidator that they were served with a lawsuit on Monday. This person has been selling on eBay and her own online store since 2000.

It’s apparent that Mary Kay Inc. is going after anyone who is selling Mary Kay products on eBay and in an online store.

If you sell Mary Kay products on eBay or online, beware! Mary Kay Inc. is on a mission to get rid of you.

PinkLighthouse will keep you informed on how this proceeds.

Touch of Pink Cosmetics Files Summary Judgment

On November 26th, 2008, defendants Amy and Scott Weber of Touch of Pink Cosmetics filed a Summary Judgment in their continuing proceedings of the lawsuit broungt against them by Mary Kay Inc.

A Summary Judgment is a motion made by one of the parties of a lawsuit before the case goes to trial. In it, the party filing the Summary Judgment puts forth the evidence in their favor and argues that this evidence is so clear that a jury faced with the case could only reach a decision in favor of the party filing the Summary Judgment.

In other words, Touch of Pink is saying that there isn’t a case against them, and the charges Mary Kay Inc. has alleged aren’t valid.

It’s very interesting reading, I think, and makes some interesting points. Now the judge will have to review the document and see whether he agrees. If he does, he will enter a judgment in Touch of Pink’s favor. Case closed.

The information outlined and points made in this summary judgment are critical to other similar Mary Kay inventory liquidators. If Mary Kay’s assertions are dismissed by the judge, Mary Kay Inc. will have to go back to the drawing board. And resellers doing business in a similar fashion as Touch of Pink could potentially be assured that they couldn’t be sued for the types of allegations contained in this lawsuit.

Here’s the entire document for your reading pleasure:

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Next Page »