In a 6–3 decision issued Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to President Trump’s trade agenda, ruling that he exceeded his authority by using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts held that while the statute allows a president to “regulate” importation during a national emergency, it does not authorize the unilateral imposition of tariffs, power that requires clear congressional approval.
The decision invalidates the bulk of the administration’s emergency-based “reciprocal” tariffs, though duties imposed under other statutes, including steel and aluminum tariffs, remain in place. The federal government has collected well over $130 billion under the IEEPA-based levies, and hundreds of companies have filed suits seeking refunds. The Court did not address how repayments would be handled.
For retailers and global brands, the ruling removes the legal foundation for the most expansive tariffs but leaves trade policy in flux, as the administration has signaled it may pursue alternative authorities.
————————————————
Today’s read: 6 minutes
This week’s stories examine what happens when brand strategy runs up against the law. From restaurants that sell merch and off-price jewelry that mirrors luxury design to bankruptcy-era forum fights and the allocation of Birkin bags, courts are being asked to determine when brand strategy gives rise to actionable legal claims.
The common thread is not necessarily aggressive enforcement, but the structure of how these businesses operate. The disputes turn on how access to products is allocated, how goods are extended into adjacent categories, how exclusivity is maintained or leveraged across different channels, and how future deals are set in motion while existing agreements remain in force.
— A trio of consumers asked the 9th Circuit to revive their case against Hermès, alleging that it unlawfully ties the sale of Birkins to customers’ purchases of other products.
— David Yurman sued TJX Cos., claiming the retailer sold jewelry that is “virtually indistinguishable” from its copyright-protected designs.
— 1587 SNEAKERS sued Travis Kelce, Patrick Mahomes & their restaurant 1587 PRIME, alleging that the use of “1587” on clothing and related goods infringes its TM.
— Saks Global & Yumi Shin filed statements in the retailer’s trade secret and non-compete case addressing the impact of Saks’ bankruptcy.
— Coty continues to pursue a case against Kering over its beauty-arm sale to L’Oréal, disputing forward commitments tied to the Gucci license that expires in 2028.
> Restaurants doubling as lifestyle brands are reshaping the likelihood-of-confusion analysis.
> Copyright is moving to center stage in the fight against jewelry dupes.
> A Birkin allocation challenge is testing the limits of tying law in luxury retail.
> A debtor’s Chapter 11 filing does not automatically halt unrelated lawsuits it has initiated against others.
> Forward commitments in valuable luxury licensing deals can trigger contract disputes well before an agreement expires.
A four-digit mark is at the center of a new lawsuit in the SDNY. 1587 SNEAKERS, INC. has sued NFL players Travis Kelce and Patrick Mahomes over their restaurant venture, 1587 PRIME, alleging infringement of its “1587” mark. At first glance, the case pits a sneaker brand against a steakhouse. But that framing overlooks how many buzzy restaurants (and other companies) now operate. Dining concepts increasingly function as lifestyle brands – complete with online shops, capsule drops, and logo-bearing merch.
According to the complaint, 1587 SNEAKERS has used “1587” since 2023 in connection with footwear and apparel. The defendants launched 1587 PRIME as a restaurant but also offer branded merch, bringing the parties into direct overlap on the clothing/accessories front.
With that in mind (and in a market where cross-industry branding is routine), the question is no longer whether a sneaker company might expand into food, but whether consumers accustomed to restaurant merch would assume a connection when they encounter identical numerals on apparel.
>> Chances are: As restaurants increasingly become merch brands, the zone of potential confusion will continue to widen.
In a separate SDNY case, David Yurman has sued The TJX Companies, accusing the retailer of selling jewelry that is “virtually indistinguishable” from its registered cable designs. Unlike many dupe disputes that turn on trademark – or increasingly, false advertising – claims, this case is grounded in copyright. Yurman argues that its sculptural cable motif is protected expression and that the accused bracelets copy nearly every element of its designs. The complaint also points to in-store messaging and social media posts that, in Yurman’s view, reinforce consumer assumptions that the goods are connected to the brand.
If the court agrees that the products are substantially similar to protected works, copyright may prove a more potent lever than trademark in close-copy jewelry disputes.
The antitrust challenge to Hermès’ Birkin allocation system is back, and it is now before the Ninth Circuit. In an opening brief filed this week, plaintiffs ask the appellate court to revive their tying claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, alleging that Hermès conditions access to Birkin handbags on customers purchasing thousands of dollars’ worth of “ancillary” products – including ready-to-wear, scarves, jewelry, and home goods.
The district court dismissed the case twice already, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a relevant market, market power, or harm to competition, and rejecting the proposed “elitist luxury handbag” market as insufficient. It also made clear that favoring high-spending customers, without more, is not an antitrust violation.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the court demanded too much at the pleading stage. They maintain that the Birkin is the tying product, ancillary goods are the tied products, and that Hermès’ allocation system effectively conditions access in a way that distorts competition.
If the Ninth Circuit revives the tying claim, discovery could offer a closer look at how Hermès allocates its most coveted products, including (eeeek!) internal sales directives, purchase thresholds, commission policies, and tracking of ancillary spending tied to Birkin eligibility. And even if Hermès ultimately prevails, an appellate opinion addressing whether disciplined scarcity can constitute market power could reach beyond this dispute. Selective distribution, client vetting, and tiered access programs are fixtures of modern luxury retail. Scrutiny of those systems through an antitrust lens could influence how brands – including certain watch and automakers – structure access to their most exclusive goods.
>> In short: The Ninth Circuit is not just reviewing the tying claim dismissal, it is being asked whether scarcity, when paired with purchase-history requirements, can cross from brand strategy into tying liability.
The non-compete and trade secrets dispute between Saks Global and former merchandising executive Yumi Shin – who jumped to Nordstrom from Saks-owned Bergdorf – is now unfolding alongside Chapter 11 proceedings. In a new filing, Saks argues that the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code applies only to actions against a debtor – not to lawsuits brought by one. Meanwhile, Shin agrees the case can proceed in principle but contends that the Texas court must first resolve personal jurisdiction, particularly given a substantially similar, first-filed Delaware action that remains stayed.
>> Timing and venue may shape high-stakes employment disputes as much as the underlying restrictive covenants.
When Kering announced the sale of its beauty division to L’Oréal last year, the transaction included an option for L’Oréal to enter into a long-term Gucci beauty license once Coty Inc.’s current agreement expires in 2028. Coty filed suit in the U.K. shortly thereafter, challenging what it views as forward commitments tied to its still-active license.
Recent commentary from both companies has sharpened the issue. On a February 10 earnings call, Kering CEO Luca de Meo said the group continues to respect its existing agreement with Coty but declined to rule out the possibility of an earlier transition. Three days later, L’Oréal CEO Nicolas Hieronimus stated that the company “would be happy to get the brand sooner” than 2028 and confirmed that timing remains under discussion. No early termination has been announced, but the public acknowledgment of ongoing talks has heightened scrutiny.
The dispute is likely to turn on whether Kering’s agreement with L’Oréal – and related public positioning – breaches exclusivity, non-impairment, or good faith provisions in Coty’s contract. Even absent termination, the case raises the question of how far a brand owner may advance a successor arrangement without affecting the value of the existing license.
This week’s disputes are less about dramatic enforcement (although, the Yurman and Hermès cases are gaining significant social media traction) and more about boundary-setting. They turn on how access is allocated, how products are extended into adjacent markets, how exclusivity is maintained or leveraged, and how succession is managed before contracts run their course. As luxury brands refine scarcity models, client-tiering systems, and cross-category expansion strategies, courts are being tasked with distinguishing between competitive brand management and conduct that crosses into legal violation.