Influencer Sues Rival Influencer for Copying Her "Vibe"

Social media influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford has sued rival influencer Alyssa Sheil for copyright and trade dress infringement in Western Texas Federal District Court, where they both live.

Gifford claims that after a joint photoshoot, Sheil blocked her on social media and began copying her "vibe” and “neutral, beige, and cream aesthetic.” At first, the claim sounds silly, but 70 pages of exhibits attached to the complaint show just how much of Gifford’s content Sheil copied. Shiel’s attorney says that Shiel did not copy her, as social media has a “sea of influencers” with the same look.

We will see if Gifford’s claims are viable.

As for copyright, some of Sheil's posts had previously been removed by the platforms for copyright violations. The trade dress element will be interesting to watch unfold. Trade dress traditionally protects the look and feel of a product or product packaging (which, in legal jargon, kind of does mean "vibe"), but has been extended to things like the interior of a restaurant. To qualify as trade dress, the “look and feel” has to be distinctive enough to serve as a source identifier. In other words, it has to essentially be a brand itself. In this highly subjective analysis, it might not be too far of a stretch for a court to find that the look and feel of a social media influencer’s content does qualify as trade dress.

We included a gallery of a handful of the photos below. All of Shiel’s content was posted after Gifford's. When you look at Gifford’s content, without any other identifying information, can you tell that it’s from her page? When you look at Shiel’s content, does it look like it could be Gifford’s, or do you think it could be from any number of other influencers leaning into the “neutral aesthetic”.

Screenshot 2024-07-24 at 8.38.35 AM.png

Screenshot 2024-07-24 at 8.39.59 AM.png

Screenshot 2024-07-24 at 8.43.09 AM.png

Screenshot 2024-07-24 at 8.43.57 AM.png

"Ornamental" Rejections for Apparel Trademarks

A logo or brand printed on a shirt or baseball cap might not be a trademark.

The use of a brand in that way could be seen as a decoration, or merely “ornamental." The actual trademark is usually printed on the sewn-in tag or on the hang tag where you usually find the price. That is where the brand acts as a "source identifier.".

In order to qualify as a trademark, the brand must be a “source identifiers.” In other words, a consumer would have to be able to look at the branding and know which company is offering the goods or services. When a consumer sees a design on the front of the shirt, it might register as just a design. However, consumers know that the tags are where the brand name can be found. Sometimes, a brand on the front of a shirt or hat can act as a trademark, if the logo is not predominant and looks like a brand instead of a decoration.

This issue arises then new apparel companies come out with their first batch of clothes, but print their logo on the front of plain customizable clothing, such as Hanes or Gildan. The tags will still say “Hanes” or “Gildan.”

As part of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) application process, you are required to show that your trademark is being used on your products as a source identifier. For apparel, a common option is to submit a photograph showing the trademark on an article of clothing. Unfortunately, if the photo only shows the brand name on the front of the shirt or hat in a way that looks like a decoration, you will likely receive a rejection from the USPTO. The only way to overcome the rejection is to show your brand name as a source identifier, such as on a hang tag or a sewn-in tag.

Gwyneth Paltrow's Health and Beauty Company, Goop, Sued For "Reverse Confusion" Trademark Infringement

Last week, Good Clean Love, Inc. (GCL), an Oregon-based woman’s personal hygiene and health company, filed a Trademark infringement lawsuit in Federal District Court against Gwyneth Paltrow’s beauty company, Goop. In its complaint, GCL asserts multiple claims, including federal trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and analogous claims under Oregon state law.

The root of the dispute is that Goop is allegedly using a tagline that is confusingly similar to GCL’s house brand. GCL says it has used “Good Clean Love” for its line of sexual health products for over 20 years, while Goop has used “Good. Clean. Goop.” for its similar sexual health supplement for a much shorter time period.

In order to determine whether there is a “likelihood of consumer confusion,” Courts look at not only the similarity of the trademarks themselves, but also the similarity of the underlying products. Trademarks do not need to be identical - it is enough if they are similar in sound, appearance, meaning, or commercial impression. If, overall, there is a likelihood of confusion, whoever used the trademark in US commerce first, has superior rights, and can stop the junior user from continuing their use of the infringing trademark.

The Goop case is a good example of a “Reverse Confusion” trademark infringement, where a newer bigger company comes onto the market and overwhelms the trademark and commercial standing of the older company, who actually has superior rights, despite being smaller.

“Reverse Confusion” occurs when a newer, bigger company comes onto the market and overwhelms the commercial standing of an older, smaller company’s brand.

In addition to impacting their sales, GCL worries that the confusion will damage their reputation. They allege that Goop uses known harmful chemicals in its products, whereas GCL’s products are “truly clean.” If consumers start to think that Goop produces the GCL’s product, consumers will also believe that GCL’s products contain these harmful ingredients.

Goop, on the other hand, called the lawsuit “meritless.” Interestingly, according to GCL, the day after Goop received GCL’s pre-suit cease and desist letter, they doubled down with their use of the infringing tagline, flooding the market. We will see if this is predictive of how Goop defends their position.

Filing this law suit does not come without risks for GCL. Because their house trademark is comprised of basic words in a somewhat descriptive order (“good”, “clean” and “love”), it could be deemed generic. This would leave them at risk of a viable counter-attack by Goop, which would be a devastating loss for the company. The reality is, there may come a time when a trademark owner finds themselves in a defensive position. The stronger a trademark, the easier it is to defend, which ideally will inform a company owner during the process of choosing their brand name.

Jury Sides With Kat Von D in Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Involving Miles Davis Tattoo [Repost of Sarah Stemer's Article Featured In Trademark Lawyer Magazine ]

(This article was Originally Published February 15, 2024 in The Trademark Lawyer Magazine online newsletter.)

A Los Angeles jury has sided with tattoo artist Kat von D (Drachenberg) in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by photographer Jeffrey Sedlik. 

The high-profile case centered around an image that the reality TV star inked onto a friend’s arm, based heavily on Sedlik’s photograph of Miles Davis. Now one of the most famous photographs of the late jazz musician, Sedlik’s shadowy portrait of Davis with his finger over his mouth “shushing” the viewer, was first published in JAZZIZ Magazine in 1989. 

Sedlik, an artist’s rights advocate and intellectual property consultant, filed his action against Drachenberg in a California District Court in 2021 seeking roughly 45,000 USD in compensatory damages or 150,000 USD in statutory damages, for copying protectable elements of his photograph and using images of the tattoo on her social media account.

Whether Sedlik’s image is covered by copyright was not in dispute, instead, the case hinged on whether Drachenberg’s use of the photograph fell under the Fair Use exception. Fair Use, a common and robust defense to copyright infringement, is most often seen in cases of commentary, criticism, and parody of an original work. In determining whether Fair Use applies, courts look to several factors, including how similar the original and copied works are, how the work was used, and how the use of the work impacted its value. Drachenberg claimed that the Fair Use defense applied, because the tattoo was not “substantially similar” to Sedlik’s photograph, and she tattooed her friend for free.

Sedlik’s position was that even though the tattoo was a favor for a friend, Drachenberg’s various social media posts of the tattoo were commercial in nature because they were intended to promote her tattoo services. Sedlick argued that Drachenberg’s use of the image without a license disrupted his ability to sell licenses to other tattoo artists, which he has done in the past. 

Sedlik took the stand and explained that each element of the photograph, including the lighting, background, and pose was meticulously planned and arranged by him. By tattooing the image onto her friend’s arm – even though the image was slightly altered – Drachenberg still infringed on Sedlik’s rights. 

Drachenberg testified that tattoo artists do not get licenses for tattooing photographs. Her attorney later added that she had to stand up for tattoo artists by fighting this case while Sedlik’s attorney assured the jury that this case was not about stifling the tattoo industry but about requesting permission and respecting art.

After less than three hours of deliberation, the jury sided with Drachenberg and found that the tattoo was not “substantially similar” to the portrait and that her use was not for a commercial purpose. In response to the verdict, Sedlik’s attorney said that “no one’s visual art is safe,” while Drachenberg is calling it a victory for the tattoo industry.

Ultimately, whether Fair Use applies remains a case-specific question. While the ruling from this jury was that this very tattoo was not “substantially similar” to the original image, the result does little to protect future tattoo artists from the opposite ruling with a different tattoo.

The fight between Sedlik and Drachenberg, seemingly having adopted the cause of their respective industries, is not quite done. Sedlik’s attorney believes the issue of “substantial similarity” is not a fact that should have been decided by a jury but instead is a matter of law to be decided by a judge. They plan to appeal that very issue.

Stemer Law’s Colorado IP Troll Case Heats Up, As Judge Issues Stark Warning

A few months ago I wrote about a Law360 article that quoted me calling my adversaries “trolls” to a Judge in Federal Court.

Those cases are still moving along, somehow.

In case you missed it - over the summer, a California bong-maker, GS Holistic LLC, filed nearly 50 identical cases in the District of Colorado, alleging that dozens of Colorado smoke shops were intentionally selling counterfeit versions of their bongs. In true IP-Troll fashion, the mass of complaints filed by a Florida law firm were copy and pasted, with big scary words intended to intimidate Defendants into settling, but without any meaningful facts or allegations.

Well, Federal Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter caught wind of these robo-filed cases and issued a strongly-worded Order to Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s lawyer to show up in person to assure the Court that they have a legitimate basis for their cases and that they plan to litigate according to the rules. We all gathered in court for the September hearing, where things seemed to get back on track.

That did not last.

Fast forward to January 12, 2024, after Plaintiff failed to follow local rules, federal rules, and deadlines, the Judge issued another biting order. In the order, which is the subject of the latest Law360 article about the cases, he called out Plaintiff for their “chaotic” prosecution, saying he has “no confidence” they can successfully work on this case load. He issued a stark warning too - if they continue their violations, he may end up dismissing all of their cases.

While the January 12 order did indeed “chide” Plaintiff, as the Law360 headlines says, it is my opinion that it also shows the the District of Colorado and Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter's commitment to finding a fair result for all litigants, in spite of the complications that these mass filings have created. As I am quoted as saying in the Law360 article - "the record is clear that the plaintiff has been given a multitude of chances to course correct, but they continue to flounder.”

Not as blistering as calling them trolls on the record in open court, but it is still the truth … and what I said about my clients is also the truth, "…the Defendants, as small business owners, are an important part of Colorado's culture and economy and will not be cast aside."

Stemer Law's Sarah Stemer Quoted In Law360 Article, In Response to IP Trolls

The article entitled ‘We’re Not Trolls,’ Bong Co. That Filed 850 IP Suits Tells Judge” can be accessed here.

Indeed, a Bong Company filed about 850 federal trademark infringement and counterfeiting cases in various districts around the country, including 45 in the District of Colorado. Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, both Stemer PA and the District of Colorado caught wind of the mass of filings. In response, Federal Magistrate Judge Neureiter issued an Order to Show Cause admonishing that problems seen in other similar filings “will not be tolerated in the District of Colorado.” The Order also set a hearing requiring Plaintiff’s counsel and a corporate representative of Plaintiff to appear in person, which took place last Tuesday.

Stemer, PA represents two of the Defendants in two different cases, so I appeared in person at the Federal Courthouse in downtown Denver. First, the Plaintiff’s attorney took the podium to explain their position. Notably, he claimed he had never heard of what an IP troll is, then proceeded to call the owners of the mom-and-pop smoke shop Defendants, who maybe sold a handful of counterfeit products on accident, “scofflaws” and “ne-er do wells” who are part of a “criminal enterprise.”

In response, I took the podium and explained that, among other things, “filing a complaint with copy-paste complaint allegations and then robo-filing them is pretty much the definition of what a troll does," which was reported in the Law360 article.

I meant every word.

I agree that it was, as another Defense attorney said as he left the courtroom, “one of the funnest days in court I have ever had.” Joking aside, these are serious matters for defendants and it is my hope is that we are back on track to litigate toward a justifiable result. While it is our fundamental belief that everyone should have equal access to the legal system, no one should be allowed to abuse it.