Seattle, WA — Starbucks is once again in legal hot water, this time facing a lawsuit alleging the global coffee giant stole the concept for a coffee-flavored lipstick. The suit, filed by a small cosmetics entrepreneur, claims that Starbucks appropriated her unique idea of combining two beloved consumer products—coffee and lipstick—without permission.
The plaintiff, who has been developing niche cosmetic products for years, alleges that she pitched the coffee-flavored lipstick concept to Starbucks in a private meeting in 2022. According to her, the company expressed interest but later ceased communication without moving forward. To her shock, Starbucks launched a similar product line in collaboration with a major beauty brand earlier this year.
The lawsuit seeks damages for intellectual property theft, breach of contract, and unfair competition. It also claims that Starbucks leveraged its vast marketing power and retail network to roll out the product globally, leaving the original creator out of the equation.
In a statement, Starbucks denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the concept was independently developed and does not infringe on any proprietary ideas. The company emphasized its commitment to ethical business practices and innovation, stating that it will vigorously defend itself against the allegations.
This is not the first time Starbucks has faced accusations of intellectual property theft. The company was previously sued in 2018 for allegedly copying a design for a reusable coffee cup. While that case was eventually settled out of court, it fueled public debate on the ethical responsibilities of large corporations in protecting smaller creators’ rights.
Legal experts suggest that the case could hinge on whether the plaintiff can prove that Starbucks had access to her concept and that there was substantial similarity between her proposal and the product they ultimately launched. If successful, the case could set a precedent for how intellectual property claims are handled in the cosmetics industry.
As the case unfolds, both parties are preparing for what could be a drawn-out legal battle. Starbucks’ legal team is known for its robust defense strategies, while the plaintiff’s representatives argue that her rights as a small business owner were trampled by a corporate giant.
The lawsuit raises broader questions about the protection of intellectual property, particularly in creative industries where large companies often have the resources to bring ideas to market quickly. Many in the entrepreneurial community will be watching closely to see how the case develops and what it might mean for future collaborations between big brands and small innovators.