Christian Dior is taking on influencer-founded brand Sincerely Jules in a clash over branding and beauty goods. In an opposition filed with the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB“) this spring, Parfums Christian Dior argues that Sincerely Jules should not be able to register SINCERELY JULES for cosmetics and fragrances because consumers are likely to confuse the mark with Dior’s more-than-40-year-old JULES fragrance trademark.
Sincerely Jules’ application for registration covers a range of Class 3 goods, including fragrances, blush, foundation, lipstick, mascara, eye makeup, nail polish, and bronzer. According to Dior’s May 2026 opposition, registration would create a likelihood of confusion because SINCERELY JULES incorporates its JULES mark in its entirety and also covers goods that overlap with those sold under Dior’s existing registration.
In a filing of its own on June 23, Sincerely Jules denies that confusion is likely, arguing that SINCERELY JULES creates a distinct commercial impression, that the marketplace is crowded with “Jules”-formative marks, and that years of coexistence without evidence of actual confusion weigh against Dior’s claim. The company also points to its longstanding use of the SINCERELY JULES name and its portfolio of federal trademark registrations as evidence that consumers associate the mark with its own brand.
The Limits of Coexistence
The opposition, as first reported by TFL, comes as Sincerely Jules is seemingly looking to broaden its retail footprint. Founded by Juliana Sariñana in 2009 as a personal style blog, the brand has since evolved into a lifestyle business, with offerings – and federal trademark registrations – spanning apparel, online retail services, publications, jewelry, and handbags. At the same time, the company has continued to pursue trademark protection across an expanding range of consumer goods, with pending applications covering including luggage, footwear, planners, calendars, and other printed materials. Its beauty application, filed on an intent-to-use basis, represents another step in that what appears to be a budding expansion strategy.
Notably, Dior did not oppose Sincerely Jules’ earlier trademark applications for fashion and lifestyle goods, nor does it appear to have challenged the company’s more recent pending applications for categories, such as luggage, footwear, and printed materials. Instead, the luxury house opted to intervene only after Sincerely Jules sought protection for cosmetics and fragrances – goods that overlap directly with Dior’s longstanding JULES registration.
Against that background, the dispute becomes less about whether the parties’ JULES-centric marks have coexisted (as Sincerely Jules argues in its answer) and more about the legal significance of that coexistence. In its defense, Sincerely Jules points to years of concurrent use of the marks by the two companies without evidence of actual consumer confusion. Dior’s position, on the other hand, looks to be that years of coexistence in apparel and lifestyle categories have limited bearing on whether the marks are likely to cause confusion when used on cosmetics and fragrances.
That distinction matters because the parties’ coexistence has historically been confined to fashion and lifestyle categories. Dior’s recent opposition, by contrast, concerns cosmetics and fragrances, a mark where the parties’ goods – and potentially their channels of trade and consumer expectations – are much more closely aligned. Whether the TTAB ultimately views the parties’ years of coexistence as meaningful evidence – or as evidence of coexistence in a materially different commercial context – may prove central to its likelihood-of-confusion analysis.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Dior’s opposition demonstrates that coexistence is not necessarily a static concept in trademark law. A mark that can exist comfortably alongside another in one commercial setting may face a very different legal analysis when it enters a new product category. For growing lifestyle brands, expanding into beauty (or other adjacent categories) may be more than a commercial decision, as it may require clearing a trademark landscape that looks very different from the one encountered in apparel or accessories.
Share
