A California federal court has refused to allow Kim Kardashian and furniture design company to sidestep claims waged against them by the Donald Judd Foundation for allegedly creating and promoting copycat furniture. In a recent order, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California rejected Kardashian and Clements Design’s respective motions to dismiss, finding that the Foundation plausibly alleged trademark and copyright infringement (among other claims) against Clements Design and a false endorsement claim against Kardashian.
The Background in Brief: The Judd Foundation filed suit against Kardashian and Clements Design in a California federal court in March 2024, alleging trademark and copyright infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition over the promotion and sale of unauthorized Donald Judd furniture. The Foundation claims Clements sold knockoff versions of Judd’s La Mansana table and Chair 84 to Kardashian, who falsely presented them as authentic in a widely viewed SKKN BY KIM video. The Foundation argues that this created the misleading impression of an endorsement, damaging the Judd brand’s reputation and control.
In a motion to dismiss, Kardashian argued, among other things, that the video amounts to noncommercial speech protected by the First Amendment, and that the Foundation did not allege consumer confusion. Meanwhile, Clements Design similarly sought dismissal, primarily arguing that Judd’s furniture designs are not protectable due to their functional nature.
In a response in July, the Foundation urged the court to allow its case against Kardashian to proceed in its entirety, arguing that it has adequately pled a false endorsement claim stemming from Kardashian’s promotion of allegedly fake furniture in a SKKN BY KIM video. Opposing Kardashian’s motion to dismiss, the Foundation argued that it has standing due to reputational harm, that Kardashian’s statements constituted commercial speech unprotected by the First Amendment, and that it has made a textbook case for false endorsement under the Lanham Act.
The Foundation also challenged Kardashian’s attempt to downplay the false endorsement claim based on her fame, calling such arguments legally irrelevant and harmful given the scale of her influence.
No Early Win for Clements, Kardashian
Siding with the Judd Foundation on March 24, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong refused to toss out the Texas-based non-profit association’s claims against Kardashian or Clements Design.
> Kardashian’s motion to dismiss: Denying Kardashian’s motion to dismiss, the court held that the mega-star’s arguments – namely, that the Foundation lacks standing to bring its false endorsement claim, its claim is barred by the First Amendment, and it does not allege consumer confusion – fail. On the standing front, the court held that the Foundation sufficiently alleged a concrete and particularized injury, specifically, reputational harm and loss of control over the DONALD JUDD brand and identity, with the court noting that reputational harm is sufficient for standing.
With regard to Kardashian’s First Amendment claim, Judge Frimpong found that Kardashian’s statements in the SKKN BY KIM office tour video qualified as commercial speech. At the same time, the court distinguished the video from Kardashian’s characterization of it as a noncommercial, newsworthy expression about her lifestyle and environment, holding that, in reality, the video is a promotional tool for SKKN BY KIM, designed to market her skincare brand and elevate its aesthetic value by associating it with Judd’s artistic legacy.
Finally, Judge Frimpong found that the video had been viewed by millions of people and that Kardashian used the Judd name in a promotional and commercial context, potentially creating the false impression of an official relationship between the Judd Foundation and the SKKN BY KIM brand. As a result, the court held that the Foundation sufficiently alleged a likelihood of confusion.
With the foregoing in mind, the court allowed the Foundation’s false endorsement claim against Kardashian to move forward.
> Clements Design’s motion to dismiss: The court similarly allowed the Foundation’s claims against Clements Design to remain in play. Among the most interesting arguments made by Clements was that the Foundation failed to plead trade dress rights in the furniture, in part because it has failed to allege non-functionality and secondary meaning, failed to plead any actionable claims based on its use of the “in the style of Donald Judd” statement because it amounts to nominative fair use, and has not pleaded copyright infringement.
Among other things, the court noted that the Foundation explicitly alleged that the design elements of the Judd furniture – such as their geometric composition, proportional balance, and aesthetic features – do not serve a purely functional purpose but instead embody a distinctive artistic expression. These allegations were sufficient to meet the non-functionality requirement, according to the court.
As for secondary meaning, the court determined that the Foundation alleged that the furniture designs had acquired distinctiveness in the minds of the consuming public through decades of consistent use, exhibitions, publications, and association with Donald Judd’s name and reputation. The court emphasized that, at the motion to dismiss stage, it is only necessary for the plaintiff to plausibly allege these elements. Because the Foundation’s complaint contained detailed allegations supporting both prongs, the court allowed the trade dress claims to move forward.
Beyond that, the court rejected Clements Design’s argument that its use of the phrase “in the style of Donald Judd” in an invoice constitutes nominative fair use, stating that the Foundation plausibly alleged that the use of Judd’s name in this context was not merely descriptive. Instead, it is likely to mislead consumers into believing there is a connection, affiliation, or endorsement by the Judd Foundation. The court emphasized that the nominative fair use defense is fact-intensive and not appropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.
Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong concluded that the Foundation’s allegations – especially that the defendants used the DONALD JUDD name in marketing and promotional materials in a way that falsely suggested authenticity or sponsorship – were sufficient to survive dismissal. As a result, the court allowed the Foundation’s claims tied to the “in the style of Donald Judd” language to proceed.
TLDR: The court’s ruling allows the Judd Foundation’s lawsuit to move forward in its entirety, setting the stage for a striking case over the intersection of intellectual property, design authenticity, and celebrity influence in the marketplace.
The case is Judd Foundation v. Clements Design Inc., et al., 2:24-cv-02496 (C.D. Cal.).
Share
