Teri Hatcher counter-sues Hydroderm, and wins
The actress received an apology from the company, which had originally taken court action claiming that Hatcher had been promoting a competing brand at the same time.
“Hydroderm LLC has specifically retracted all accusations made against Teri Hatcher including that she endorsed any competing products,” Hydroderm said in an official company statement.
Hatcher gets an apology
The company also offered an unequivocal appology to Hatcher for its actions and any damage or hurt it might have caused.
The company originally sued the Desperate Housewives star for $2.8 million for alleged breach of contract, stating that it had paid Hatcher $2.4m to endorse specific products in its portfolio, which focuses on anti-aging.
In a suit filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Hydroderm had claimed that Hatcher violated an exclusive marketing contract by simultaneously endorsing a lip enhancer developed by City Cosmetics, which was in direct competition with one of its products.
Breach of contract
Hydroderm alleged the actress had struck a deal that prevents her from endorsing cosmetics marketed by its competitors.
Although star sponsorship has proved to be one of the key promotional tools for many fragrance and cosmetics players in the past, when contractual disagreements occur lawsuits invariably end up being major bones of contention.
In the past big names such as Jessica Simpson and Nicole Kidman have all had law suits bought against them in connection with comsetics sponsorships, which in return has led to the stars sucessfully counter-suing.
Nicole Kidman is innocent!
Last year UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph was successfully sued for implying that Nicole Kidman had broken her contractual agreement with Chanel No. 5, by claiming it was not her preferred fragrance.
Likewise, pop singer and actress Jessica Simpson had two lawsuits filed against her in 2004 and 2006 for the Dessert Beauty range that she co-developed and promoted.
The first suit was filed by contract suppliers, who claimed that they were not paid, while the second was filed by a competitor, claiming that the brand name was stolen, having already been patented in 1989.
Simpson’s range is currently still available from a number of online retailers.