The luxury brand filed a lawsuit against Fashion Nova Tuesday in California’s Central District Court, accusing the fast-fashion player of trademark infringement and unfair competition.
The marks at issue include Chrome Hearts’ “Cemetery Design Patch” and “CH Cross,” both of which are decorative crosses the company uses on its merchandise. The Cemetery Design Patch mark has been active since 2014, and the CH Cross mark was registered in 2009.
In the complaint, Chrome Hearts accuses Fashion Nova of trademark infringement on each of the marks, because of a two-piece suede set that Fashion Nova allegedly sold.
“Chrome Hearts made a custom two-piece outfit for a prominent A-list celebrity and influential figure, featuring the Cemetery Cross Patch and CH Cross marks. This suede two-piece set was featured in multiple media accessible by the public,” Chrome Hearts said in the complaint. “In approximately May 2024, Chrome Hearts discovered that the accused products were being offered for sale on [Fashion Nova’s] website.”
Though Chrome Hearts doesn’t specifically call out which celebrity the company made the set for, signs point to Kim Kardashian , who donned a brown suede two-piece Chrome Hearts set at GQ’s 2023 Men of the Year ceremony. The set matches the images set forth in Chrome Hearts’ complaint.
Kim Kardashian attends the 2023 GQ Men Of The Year ceremony, wearing Chrome Hearts. (Photo by JC Olivera/WireImage via Getty Images) Photo via Chrome Hearts v. Fashion Nova court documents. Photo via Chrome Hearts v. Fashion Nova court documents.
Chrome Hearts goes on to say that Fashion Nova willfully tried to capitalize on the fame of its trademarks with the two-piece set.
“Upon information and belief, [Fashion Nova] had actual knowledge of the custom Chrome Hearts two-piece outfit and deliberately copied the Chrome Hearts marks and outfit in an attempt to usurp the benefits of Chrome Hearts’ goodwill and reputation,” the company alleges.
The luxury brand says that, because the merchandise Fashion Nova allegedly sold “bear marks that are identical with, substantially indistinguishable from or confusingly similar to one or more of the Chrome Hearts marks,” the items would “very likely cause confusion for consumers, including [Chrome Hearts’] customers.”
The company later claims that Fashion Nova’s alleged conduct “was extreme, outrageous, fraudulent and was inflicted on Chrome Hearts in reckless disregard of Chrome Hearts’ rights.”
In the complaint, Chrome Hearts requests an injunction that would prevent Fashion Nova from making, advertising or selling the two-piece set at issue or “any other products that bear the Chrome Hearts marks.” It also requests that the judge order Fashion Nova to “recall from any distributors and retailers and to deliver to Chrome Hearts for destruction, or other disposition, all remaining inventory of the accused products” and that the judge order Fashion Nova to disclose the suppliers and manufacturers it used to make the accused products.
In addition to the injunctions and disclosures, Chrome Hearts seeks financial damages of “up to $2 million per trademark counterfeited and infringed, per type of good,” as well as “an award of enhanced damages due to [Fashion Nova’s] willful infringement” and attorneys’ fees.
The case is not the first time the two companies have met in court; in August 2020, Chrome Hearts filed its first trademark infringement lawsuit against Fashion Nova, but the two settled the case outside of court.
By its own admission, Chrome Hearts has been aggressive in pursuing legal action against companies it believes have infringed on its trademarks. The company notes in its complaint that, in the past five years alone, it has “filed more than 100 lawsuits against defendants who infringed upon the Chrome Hearts Marks.”
Other recent defendants have included Shein , Crocs and Walmart . All three cases, as well as others, remain ongoing.
Neither Chrome Hearts nor Fashion Nova returned Sourcing Journal’s requests for comment on the lawsuit.
Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
It’s essential to note our commitment to transparency:
Our Terms of Use acknowledge that our services may not always be error-free, and our Community Standards emphasize our discretion in enforcing policies. As a platform hosting over 100,000 pieces of content published daily, we cannot pre-vet content, but we strive to foster a dynamic environment for free expression and robust discourse through safety guardrails of human and AI moderation.
Most Popular
Comments / 0