It is worth noting that unlike copyright and patent protections, which have originality and novelty requirements, respectively, trademark law has no such prerequisite, which bodes well for Chrome Hearts and its not-entirely-novel cross logo. MNML’s jeans (left) & Chrome Hearts’ jeans (right)

With such “willful and deliberate” acts in mind, Chrome Hearts sets forth claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition, and seeks monetary damages, as well as “temporary, preliminary and permanent” injunctive relief to bar MNMLfrom continuing to “manufacture, import, advertise, market, promote, supply, distribute, offer for sale, or sell” products that infringe its trademarks.

More than that, Chrome Hearts argues that by “misappropriating the Chrome Hearts trademark to capitalize on Chrome Hearts’ goodwill for own pecuniary gain,” MNML is “diluting the distinctive quality of the Chrome Hearts mark and decreasing the capacity of such marks to identify and distinguish Chrome Hearts’ products and has caused a likelihood of harm to Chrome Hearts’ business reputation.” In doing so, Chrome Hearts claims that 4-year old MNML deliberately sought to “confuse the public as to the source of goods or services,” and to “reap the benefit of Chrome Hearts’ goodwill associated with the Chrome Hearts trademarks.” In other words, Chrome Hearts argues that by using a nearly exact version of its “cross” trademark (i.e., any word, name, symbol, or design (including logos, colors, sounds, product configurations, etc.) used to identify and distinguish the goods of one brand from those of another), MNML is likely to confuse consumers into believing that Chrome Hearts is in some way connected with or endorsed the products when it has not.

Despite having such “a non-delegable duty to prevent such acts and behavior,” Chrome Hearts alleges that MNML offered for sale products that bear “identical or confusingly similar reproductions of one or more Chrome Hearts marks … in total disregard of rights to control its intellectual property.” and internationally.Īgainst the background, and given the brand’s adoption by an array of big-name celebrities ranging from Madonna, Rihanna and Cher to Tom Brady, David Beckham, and Lenny Kravitz, Chrome Hearts argues that MNML “knew or reasonably should have known of the wrongful acts and behavior” that it was engaging in when it began manufacturing and selling jeans bearing Chrome Hearts’ federally registered “cross” mark. To be exact, counsel for Chrome Hearts alleges in the newly-filed suit that MNML LOS ANGELES is on the hook for adorning its jeans with one of Chrome Hearts’ “most iconic and well recognized trademarks” in an effort to confuse consumers as to the source of its allegedly infringing wares.Īccording to the trademark infringement and unfair competition complaint that it filed in a California federal court on Wednesday, Chrome Hearts sets the stage by asserting that its “cross” trademark – which it began using in the late 1980s – has become synonymous with its brand. Since setting up shop in 1988, Chrome Hearts says that it has “devoted substantial time, effort, and money to designing, developing, advertising, promoting, and marketing its products, and spends on average over $1 million per year on advertising, promoting, and marketing brand.”Īs a result, it “has sold over a billion dollars’ worth of clothing, all bearing one or more of trademarks,” and those very marks, including the “cross” mark, “have achieved widespread acceptance and recognition amongst the consuming public” throughout the U.S. The Los Angeles-based brand has filed a new lawsuit accusing a fast fashion streetwear brand of offering up a cut-and-paste replica of one of its hot-selling styles of jeans. Chrome Hearts is not letting the coronavirus stand in the way of its enforcement efforts.

Mnml shipping time