01.10.23
Kendo Holdings, Marc Jacobs Beauty’s incubator (an LVMH brand), has been sued by skincare brand Amarte over alleged trademark infringement.
According to the lawsuit filed in a California federal court last month, Amarte USA Holdings claims that Marc Jacobs offered up makeup products labeled as Eye-Conic, which were manufactured by LVMH’s Kendo Holdings, and also promoted and sold by Sephora, Walmart, Neiman Marcus Group, and Nordstrom, all of whom are named as defendants in the lawsuit. The problem is that Amarte maintains trademark rights in (and a registration for) the Eyeconic mark for use on “eye cosmetics [and] eye creams.”
Meanwhile, Amarte’s Eyeconic Eye Cream launched into the U.S. market in 2013 and is designed to target wrinkles with enhanced-stability retinol.
Amarte asserts that for over a decade, it has “substantially exclusively and continuously used and promoted” the Eyeconic trademark in connection with its goods. As a result of its use and promotion of Eyeconic in connection with its products, Amarte claims that consumers have come to associate the Eyeconic mark with it.
Furthermore, Amarte asserts that Marc Jacobs, Kendo Holdings, LVMH-owned beauty retailer Sephora, Walmart, Neiman Marcus Group, and Nordstrom are (or were) collectively “advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, selling, and otherwise offering” up Marc Jacobs’s multi-finish eye shadow palette “under the identical or substantially similar Eye-Conic trademark.”
Amarte seeks relief in the form of:
According to the lawsuit filed in a California federal court last month, Amarte USA Holdings claims that Marc Jacobs offered up makeup products labeled as Eye-Conic, which were manufactured by LVMH’s Kendo Holdings, and also promoted and sold by Sephora, Walmart, Neiman Marcus Group, and Nordstrom, all of whom are named as defendants in the lawsuit. The problem is that Amarte maintains trademark rights in (and a registration for) the Eyeconic mark for use on “eye cosmetics [and] eye creams.”
Eye-Conic vs. Eyeconic
The seven-shade Eye-Conic Multi-Finish Eyeshadow Palette from Marc Jacobs was released in 2017.Meanwhile, Amarte’s Eyeconic Eye Cream launched into the U.S. market in 2013 and is designed to target wrinkles with enhanced-stability retinol.
Amarte asserts that for over a decade, it has “substantially exclusively and continuously used and promoted” the Eyeconic trademark in connection with its goods. As a result of its use and promotion of Eyeconic in connection with its products, Amarte claims that consumers have come to associate the Eyeconic mark with it.
Furthermore, Amarte asserts that Marc Jacobs, Kendo Holdings, LVMH-owned beauty retailer Sephora, Walmart, Neiman Marcus Group, and Nordstrom are (or were) collectively “advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, selling, and otherwise offering” up Marc Jacobs’s multi-finish eye shadow palette “under the identical or substantially similar Eye-Conic trademark.”
Amarte’s Case
According to Justia Legal News, the complaint states causes of action for:- Federal trademark infringement
- Federal unfair competition
- California statutory unfair competition
- California common law trademark infringement
- California common law passing off and unfair competition
Amarte seeks relief in the form of:
- A finding of trademark infringement
- A preliminary and permanent injunction
- A finding that the infringement was willful, intentional, deliberate, and malicious
- A complete list of individuals and entities to whom the infringing products were purchased, sold, or offered
- A transfer of inventory of the infringing products, including the materials used to manufacture, produce, or print items
- A written report under oath detailing how defendants have complied with the judgment
- Damages including prejudgment interest
- Punitive damages
- Attorneys’ fees and costs
- An accounting and constructive trust on defendants’ funds and assets arising out of infringing activities
