This article is part of TFL’s newest vertical, TL/DR, where we cover the newest cases and latest developments in 500 words or less.
Supergoop is taking on Five Below, accusing the discount retailer of deliberately copying its trademarks and distinctive product packaging to sell dupe products. In the complaint that it filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 25, Supergoop claims that Five Below adopted trade dress and branding for a line of SPF products that is “confusingly similar” to its own products in an attempt to piggyback off nearly two decades of brand goodwill.
Setting the stage in the complaint, Supergoop cites the the strength and fame of its brand, noting that it has used its logo and trade dress since 2005, achieved over $250 million in sales in 2022, alone, and maintains partnerships with Sephora, Nordstrom, and Amazon, among other retailers.
> The Supergoop Trade Dress: At the heart of Supergoop’s complaint is its “well-known” trade dress, which consists of: (1) a white or clear bottle or tube; (2) a contrasting yellow cap; (3) the word “Supergoop!” in a stylized blue handwriting-style script, with a large initial “S” and a concluding exclamation point; (4) the product name printed directly below the logo in all capital letters, often in iridescent ink; (5) a product descriptor in smaller font just beneath the product name; (6) an SPF number enclosed in a circular design; and an overall color palette that emphasizes blue, white, and yellow.
The buzzy skincare company claims that these elements together form a distinctive and non-functional trade dress that consumers immediately associate with its brand.
> Five Below’s “Infringing” Products: Pointing to Five Below’s “Sugargirl!” line, Supergoop argues that Five Below replicates these same features, with the allegedly infringing design using a stylized blue “Sugargirl!” mark that also features a capital “S,” a lowercase central “g,” and an exclamation point, which mimicks the format and feel of “Supergoop!” The Sugargirl! product packaging also includes a white or clear bottle, yellow caps, bold all-caps product names, small font descriptors, and SPF indicators within hearts (mirroring Supergoop’s circular design), per Supergoop.
At the same time, Supergoop argues that one of Five Below’s dupe products, “Glowy Face Screen,” imitates it registered “Glowscreen” trademark nearly verbatim.
With the foregoing in mind, Supergoop sets out claims of trademark and trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, and seeks injunctive relief to halt further sales of the infringing products, as well as damages and attorneys’ fees.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The newly-filed case is the latest in a growing wave of trade dress litigation targeting dupes in the beauty industry, where lookalike packaging and branding are increasingly viewed as more than just savvy marketing. As consumer behavior continues to be driven by visual cues and shelf appeal, brands are leaning on trade dress protections to police the boundaries of their identity and fend off encroachment from lower-priced competitors. In an industry where packaging can be as influential as product efficacy, aesthetics of a bottle or tube are not merely decorative; they are a battleground for brand value and consumer trust.
The case is Supergoop LLC v. Five Below, Inc. and iWorld LLC, 1:25-cv-05304 (SDNY).
Share
