Boldface Licensing + Branding v. By Lee Tillett, Inc.
940 F. Supp. 2d 1178
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- Tillett owns the federally registered KROMA cosmetics mark; Boldface uses KHROMA BEAUTY by Kardashian, alleging no likelihood of confusion.
- Boldface launched KHROMA BEAUTY nationwide in 2012–2013; Tillett argues this harms its KROMA brand and creates reverse confusion.
- Tillett sent cease-and-desist letters; Boldface continued development and rollout; PTO initially refused Boldface marks for likely confusion with KROMA.
- Chroma case (other plaintiff) denied preliminary relief; this case turns on federal registration and nationwide reach of Boldface’s marks.
- Court finds strong likelihood of confusion, irreparable harm, and public interest in granting a nationwide injunction, with a tailored scope.
- Bond set at $50,000; court may stay injunction for seven days to allow a stay application; injunction to be drafted consistent with opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of confusion | Tillett: KHROMA BEAUTY infringes KROMA; strong confusion risk | Boldface: weak/no confusion due to distinct branding; registered marks differ | Likely confusion established; injunction granted |
| Irreparable harm | Infringement causes irreparable loss of goodwill, customers | Delay undermines irreparable harm claim; potential cure via damages | Irreparable harm shown; no reliance on presumption needed |
| Scope of injunction | Nationwide relief needed to prevent reverse confusion | Dawn Donut/Fairway Foods limits relief to market-specific areas | Injunction nationwide; reverse confusion justifies broad scope |
| Public interest | Avoid consumer confusion and protect marks' integrity | Public interest favors business freedom and distribution | Public interest supports injunction to prevent confusion |
Key Cases Cited
- AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (eight-factor likelihood of confusion framework)
- Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005) (likelihood of confusion and forward/reverse confusion explained)
- Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (strength of the mark and related factors in confusion analysis)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006) (preliminary injunction standards and irreparable harm considerations)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (injunction standards and balancing of harms in preliminary relief)