Marc Jacobs Sued Over Eye-Conic Eye Shadow Palettes

Fashion label Marc Jacobs faces trademark infringement litigation over its Eye-Conic line of eye shadow palettes.

Amarte USA Holdings filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, on Monday, December 19, 2022. The complaint names Kendo Holdings, Marc Jacobs, Sephora, Walmart, Neiman Marcus Group, and Nordstrom as defendants. The complaint states that Amarte “has manufactured, advertised, marketed, promoted, distributed, sold, and otherwise offered high end skin care and cosmetic products” under the Eyeconic trademark for over ten years. Most notably, Amarte uses the Eyeconic mark on “an anti-wrinkle topical cream for nourishing, hydrating, and rejuvenating skin around the eyes.” The complaint alleges that “[t]he purchasing public has. . . come to associate Amarte’s EYECONIC Mark with Amarte.”

Marc Jacobs first introduced its Eye-Conic line of eye shadow palettes in 2017. Kendo Holdings manufactured and distributed the eye shadow palettes in question. The products were sold in online storefronts and retail stores owned by Sephora, Walmart, Neiman Marcus, and Nordstrom. The complaint alleges that the use of the Eye-Conic trademark “is a willful and intentional attempt to trade on the goodwill and commercial success that Amarte has built up in Amarte’s EYECONIC Mark and to free ride on Amarte’s success as a preeminent and well-known manufacturer, distributor, advertiser, marketer, and developer of skin care and cosmetic products.” The complaint continues on to allege a likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception resulting in irreparable harm.

The complaint states causes of action for: (1) federal trademark infringement; (2) federal unfair competition; (3) California statutory unfair competition; (4) California common law trademark infringement; and (5) California common law passing off and unfair competition.

Amarte seeks relief in the form of: (1) a finding of trademark infringement; (2) a preliminary and permanent injunction; (3) a finding that the infringement was willful, intentional, deliberate, and malicious; (4) a complete list of individuals and entities to whom the infringing products were purchased, sold, or offered; (5) a transfer of inventory of the infringing products, including the materials used to manufacture, produce, or print items; (6) a written report under oath detailing how defendants have complied with the judgment; (7) damages including prejudgment interest; (8) punitive damages; (9) attorneys’ fees and costs; and (10) an accounting and constructive trust on defendants’ funds and assets arising out of infringing activities.

Additional Reading

Marc Jacobs, Sephora, Nordstrom Named in Trademark Lawsuit Over Eyeshadow Palette, The Fashion Law (January 3, 2023)

Amarte USA Holdings, Inc. v. Kendo Holdings Inc. et al

Complaint in Amarte USA Holdings, Inc. v. Kendo Holdings Inc., et al

Photo Credit: TungCheung /