Pursuing Posers: A Q&A With Facial Devices Company FOREO's North America General Counsel
Evan Feldstein spoke with Corporate Counsel about the prevalence of counterfeit beauty goods and the role of the legal department in preventing and remedying the practice.
June 28, 2019 at 06:59 PM
6 minute read
When it comes to counterfeit retail goods, handbags, apparel and watches—not beauty products—likely come to mind. But the prevalence of counterfeit cosmetics has increased significantly over the past few years, ranking in the top 10 of fake items imported into the United States in fiscal year 2017.
Evan Feldstein, vice general manager and general counsel at FOREO North America, attributes the increase to a growing luxury beauty product market, citing as examples skin serums that cost more than $100 and FOREO facial devices that can run up to $200.
“Traditionally, there were lipsticks and individual pieces of makeup that ran $6, $8, $10, $12, $20, and there wasn't a huge market for the counterfeiting because the price was so low,” he said. “But devices are more expensive, and there are now these very high-end makeup products, [establishing] a market for knockoff versions of the expensive products.”
Feldstein, a longtime patent attorney who took on a more generalist legal role when he went in-house at FOREO in May 2016, spoke with Corporate Counsel about his job going after cosmetic counterfeiters and what his day-to-day looks like.
Corporate Counsel: What is the makeup of the FOREO legal department?
Evan Feldstein: It is split across three different offices. I am the general counsel for the U.S. and Canada. We also have a legal department in Zagreb, Croatia, that oversees Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and we have a department in Shanghai, China, that oversees all of the Asian countries.
CC: What is the role of legal in preventing counterfeiting activity?
EF: In terms of prevention, it's nearly impossible. But as a registered patent attorney, I spend a lot of time obtaining patents over our largest products like our Luna range, the fifth patent over which will issue in a couple weeks. With our [illuminating eye massager] IRIS, I have both utility and design patents. We have designs all over the world and utility patents in some smaller, secondary markets like Australia, Canada, South Korea and other places. In terms of trademark registrations … U.S. Customs can catch things at the border for you.
CC: What about getting some sort of remedy after the fact?
EF: In terms of what we do once we've found [a counterfeit item] on places like Amazon or eBay is essentially try and work with them to see if they'll remove it. EBay and Amazon are somewhat difficult in that they require a court order to remove a fake listing, which we have done in the past.
Last summer we filed a suit against 55 defendants. They were all removed from Amazon, eBay, [beauty and personal care website] Alibaba, and they paid us a significant amount of money basically admitting that they were at fault or importing these infringing goods. … That was the first one against a lot of users, but we're probably going to do that about once a year. We did this last August, so probably toward the end of the summer we'll file another one against a significant number and hopefully it goes just as well as the last time.
We've done some smaller litigation where most of the time, we go back and forth with somebody's lawyer, and they end up settling before we actually end up filing. Financially, we're generally the larger party so we have the ability to influence in that manner because nobody wants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys' fees if you're selling 200 products out of Amazon.
CC: Given your IP background, were you brought on because counterfeiting became an issue?
EF: Yes, that was the first thing that the president of the company wanted me to get involved in—patent infringement matters but the prosecution as well. Patent prosecution is somewhat expensive, and we didn't have anybody at the company three years ago who had a background in it, so I oversaw the prosecution side as well as the removal side.
At that point, the company was very young, formed in the U.S. in 2014 and globally in 2013, and nobody anticipated the volume or pace that we were going to have, so the company really needed to get somebody in here quickly. Over the last three years, since I started in May 2016, we've removed 42,000 listings off of the internet, so it's been somewhat successful. But there's always room to improve because as we've gotten more popular, you see more listings now. I think it's sort of a constant battle.
CC: In addition to the patent work, what are your daily duties?
EF: I oversee the entire legal department—contracts review, collections, [Food and Drug Administration], customs. Anything that you could think of in terms of a general counsel's role, I get involved in all of it. …I do try and do most of it myself, although I do use outside counsel for certain things.
CC: Who are your go-to firms?
EF: For the litigation last summer, Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang. I've been working with Pisani & Roll to keep on top of the Trump tariffs situation, and we use Fenwick & West for our international patents and Kunzler Law Group for international trademarks.
CC: Coming from a boutique law firm where you spent 90% of your day doing patent prosecution for medical devices, what is it like having a generalist role?
EF: It's very exciting because there is something new every day. I get to see totally different areas that I never thought I would be involved in. It's also been interesting, since I moved into the management side, where I'm getting involved in marketing and sales, which is totally different from the legal background and very interesting in a way as well.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPeople and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
7 minute readFrom Olympic Aspirations to Legal Innovation: Tom Dunlop's Journey to Founding Summize
8 minute read'Am I Spending Time in the Right Place?' SPX Technologies CLO Cherée Johnson on Living and Leading With Intent
9 minute readMary O'Carroll on Her Move to Goodwin: Law Firms Are at the Heart of Industry Disruption
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250