Monday, May 11, 2009

News: Competitor sues Pure Romance

By Kimball Perry • kperry@enquirer.com • May 10, 2009

Pure Romance, based in Loveland, is being sued in federal court in California by a competitor in the sex toy party business, accused of telling prospective clients their competitor is going out of business.
Advertisement

Brown Bag Party of Costa Mesa, Calif., filed suit last month in California federal court against Pure Romance, accusing it of libel, interference with business, false advertising and unfair competition in the suit that seeks at least $75,000 in damages.

Pure Romance and Brown Bag are national competitors for what Pure Romance calls "Naughty & Nice Gifts for Adults." Pure Romance did about $90 million in sales last year, up about 30 percent from two years before.

Both companies largely rely on individuals - usually women - hosting parties in their homes to show off sex toys, lingerie and other items they say educate customers on sexual issues. Party hosts make money from sales commissions. The products aren't sold in stores. Pure Romance notes it has tens of thousands of party-hosting representatives.

The suit alleges that at a March 14-15 Las Vegas convention for independent contractors, Pure Romance owners and representatives spread the word that Brown Bag was "going into bankruptcy," "going out of business" and was being bought by Pure Romance, none of which is true, Brown Bag's attorneys say.

Those statements were made, the suit alleges, in an attempt by Pure Romance to convince independent contractors to sell Pure Romance products and not those of their competitors. It alleges those making the comments "knew they were false" when they made them.

Calls and e-mails to Pure Romance weren't returned.

Pure Romance also is involved in a local lawsuit. It is suing women who used to host parties featuring Pure Romance products but switched to host parties featuring Brown Bag products. That suit initially was filed in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court but since has been transferred to federal court.

0 comments: