Influencer Sues Rival Influencer for Copying Her "Vibe"
Influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford has sued rival influencer Alyssa Sheil for copyright and trade dress infringement. Gifford claims that after a joint photoshoot, Sheil blocked her on social media and began copying her "vibe." At first, the claim sounds silly, but we are not so sure it is.
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”.
Well, Adidas Filed an Opposition against Black Lives Matter: A Quick Note about Choosing Your Battles
Adidas filed an Opposition against BLM’s logo. Here is my quick opinion on what lessons trademark owners and their practitioners we learn from it.
It’s not everyday that we see such newsworthy activity in the Intellectual Property world.
Last week, adidas, AG, adidas International Marketing BV (“Adidas”) filed an Opposition in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) against registration of an application filed by Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. (“BLM”).
The BLM logo that Adidas objected to is quite literally BLM’s logo. Here it is, in case you need a refresher:
According to Adidas, that logo is so similar to the Adidas “Three Stripe” logos, that it will likely cause consumer confusion as applied to certain goods and services listed in BLM’s application. The alleged offending goods include apparel and bags, which, given the magnitude of trademark protection that Adidas has over that type of product, might be a loosely plausible argument. Unfortunately, Adidas did not stop there. They also said that BLM should not be able to register their logo for “Promoting public interest in and awareness of topics of interest to those in the fields of activism and community organizing in the Black community…”
Not a good look.
Whether you are an international corporation, mom-and-pop shop, non-profit, or individual person, you should have the right to enforce your trademarks. However, corporations and their attorneys need to be increasingly more careful about the message they are sending.
Social media is changing the game - court filings and threatening correspondence can be shared at the speed of light, by nearly anyone with internet. Gone are the days when you can simply copy and paste a cobbled-together argument and send it out without second thought.
Public outcry can sink generations of goodwill in one 24-hour news cycle. Even if you set aside personal morals and remain pragmatic, that goodwill is something to keep in mind.
As for the Adidas debacle, not surprisingly, they dismissed the Opposition two days later. Two days too late in this law blogger’s opinion.