Have you seen Victoria’s Secret new “The Nakeds” palette? Gorgeous baby pink metal die-cast label, pretty sleek box, and a series of neutral eyeshadows inside? But perhaps you’ve also heard of another Naked Palette from Urban Decay Cosmetics—it was so nice they had to do it twice. But can the two “Nakeds” coexist beautifully?
Cue “The People’s Court” music!
This is the plaintiff, Victoria’s Secret. A powerhouse in lingerie and most recently beauty, it is seeking to capitalize on the trend of ‘Naked’ cosmetics. Recently served with a cease and desist letter from a company claiming an infringement on their copyright and was ordered to stop selling its ‘The Nakeds’ eye kit.
This is the defendant, Urban Decay Cosmetics. On July 18th 2012, it served Victoria’s Secret company with a cease and desist letter demanding the company stop selling its “The Nakeds” eye pallette. Victoria’s Secret countered Urban Decay Cosmetics with a lawsuit that pretty much said, “cease and desist letter my $*@!”. The brand actually said in the lawsuit that it has used that term for cosmetics since June but began using it for lingerie more than two years ago. The lawsuit says the company owns a trademark for “The Nakeds By Victoria’s Secret,” which can be used for its bras and panties.
Rather than deal with litigation tennis, Victoria’s Secret brand asked for a declaratory judgement on 7/31/12 to say whether or not Urban Decay Cosmetics owns sole use of the term ‘Naked’ for its cosmetics products. You can read the entire complaint as posted over on FameAppeal.com.
It’s going to be very interesting to see how this pans out. Is the term ‘Naked’ non-specific? Or should Urban Decay be allowed to continue using the trademark?
Things could get ugly. Stay tuned!