Britney Spears Perfume Lawsuit Ends With Revlon Settlements

Revlon has fully settled a corporate espionage lawsuit that claimed several former employees “sabotaged” the company’s decades-old fragrance partnership with Britney Spears.

The case, filed last year by Revlon and its Elizabeth Arden unit, accused four ex-staffers of stealing trade secrets and breaching their contracts by taking the Britney account to upstart rival Give Back Beauty – a move the lawsuit described as a “heist.”

But over the past few months, Revlon has quietly struck deals to resolve those claims – first with Give Back Beauty and one of the execs in February, then last week with three more ex-staffers. On Monday, the judge signed off on the latter deal and ruled that the “matter be closed.”

The settlements have cleared the way for Give Back Beauty to formally take over Britney’s lucrative perfume brand. In a February press release, the smaller company announced that it had “signed a transition agreement” with Revlon to clear the use of the intellectual property and end the legal dispute.

“My fragrance business has always held a special place in my heart,” Spears said at the time. “It’s always been a way for me to connect with my fans, who I love. I’m excited for this new chapter and bringing more beauty into the world with Give Back Beauty.”

A rep for Revlon did not immediately return a request for comment on the resolution of the litigation.

Spears first inked a deal with Elizabeth Arden in 2004, launching her “Curious” scent later that year to a reported $100 million in sales. By 2013, that brand had reportedly sold more than 500 million bottles and the overall Spears-Arden partnership was earning $30 million a year. But last year Spears declined to renew the deal and instead signed with Give Back Beauty, an Italian firm founded in 2017.

Faced with the loss of a valuable partnership, Revlon went the legal route – claiming that Britney had not simply walked away, but had been illegally poached by Give Back Beauty. The lawsuit claimed four Arden staffers (Vanessa Kidd, Dominick Romeo, Reid Mulvihill and Ashley Fass) had secretly helped orchestrate the star’s departure, including one who allegedly “acted as a double-agent” – working directly with Give Back Beauty while ostensibly negotiating with Britney’s team to renew her Revlon deal.

“Revlon and Elizabeth Arden were completely unaware that Revlon’s own team was actively sabotaging one of their most valuable licensing relationships,” the company’s lawyers claimed at the time. Spears herself was not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing.

Give Back Beauty and the former execs strongly denied the allegations, arguing in a later legal response that Revlon had gone to court with a “false narrative” of espionage and corporate raiding simply because it was angry that it had been beaten by a competitor.

“Revlon’s motion is … an anticompetitive ruse to damage a competitor because Revlon, weakened in the market by its recent bankruptcy, cannot compete fairly with GBB, and seeks to frustrate GBB’s transition of Britney Brands, at the same time, sending a warning about future competition from an international rival that poses a growing threat to Revlon’s market share,” the smaller company’s lawyers wrote at the time.

But by February, despite the strongly-word legal broadsides, Give Back Beauty and Revlon had apparently struck a deal to end their dispute. Beyond allowing Give Back to take over the IP for the brand, the terms of the deal have not been disclosed in court filings.

“Give Back Beauty will bring Britney’s fragrance and beauty business to another level,” Corrado Brondi, the company’s founder, wrote at the time. “We are looking forward to building on that legacy, introducing innovations to her product lines and expanding the brand into new markets globally, while ensuring that the spirit and authenticity of her brand remain intact.”

The February settlements covered Give Back itself and Ashley Fass; the settlement approved Monday covered Kidd, Romeo, Mulvihill. Reps for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment.