Crossing the Line: Chrome Hearts v. Nordstrom and the Boundaries of Design Mark Protection

A recently filed lawsuit pitting luxury brand Chrome Hearts against retail giant Nordstrom brings this question into sharp focus and may carry important implications for brands that rely on ornamental design motifs as trademarks.

The Dispute

On June 4, Chrome Hearts filed suit in the US District Court for the Central District of California, asserting claims of trademark infringement and counterfeiting, false designation of origin, unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and common law trademark infringement. Chrome Hearts alleges that belts and jewelry sold by Nordstrom bear marks that are “identical, substantially indistinguishable, or confusingly similar to” its federally registered “CH Cross” and “CH Plus” trademarks.

Chrome Hearts owns several federal trademark registrations for its cross designs, covering apparel, jewelry, and accessories. According to the complaint, these registrations are “valid, subsisting, and incontestable,” and were obtained without proof of secondary meaning, meaning the marks are “inherently distinctive.” Chrome Hearts is not asserting a monopoly over cross imagery in general. Rather, it seeks to enforce registrations for two specific cross designs (the CH Cross and CH Plus) that it argues have developed trademark significance through years of consistent use and consumer association.

The Central Legal Question

This lawsuit highlights the recurring tension between two foundational principles in trademark law: protecting marks that consumers associate with a particular source, while ensuring that common design elements remain available for others to use. Courts have long recognized that trademark rights should not extend so far as to deplete the public domain of symbols and designs that have general communicative or aesthetic value.

Recognition or visual appeal alone is not enough. To receive trademark protection, the design must serve as an indicator of source in the minds of relevant consumers, even if it also serves a decorative purpose. This principle is particularly significant for design marks. Unlike word marks, design elements may be adopted by consumers for reasons unrelated to source identification, such as aesthetic preference, cultural or religious significance, or fashion trends.

In the fashion industry, the line between decoration and brand identification is often blurry. A design feature may serve both roles at once: it may embellish a product while also signaling the product’s origin to consumers. When assessing whether a design element operates as a trademark, courts generally consider the extent and manner of the mark’s use, the scope of advertising and promotional activities, whether consumers recognize the mark as a brand indicator, and whether the feature has been applied consistently in a way that communicates source.

A significant hurdle for Chrome Hearts will be the widespread use of cross imagery in fashion and jewelry. Cross designs appear across products from many different brands. Nordstrom will likely contend that the accused designs function as ornamentation, not as indicators of brand origin, and that consumers seeing a cross motif on a belt or necklace would not necessarily assume the product came from Chrome Hearts.

Chrome Hearts, by contrast, will likely focus on the similarity between its trademarks and the goods sold by Nordstrom, the incontestable status of its registrations, and the allegation that its marks are “inherently distinctive.” The complaint also alleges that Nordstrom’s conduct was “deliberate and intended to confuse the public as to the source of Defendants’ goods or services and to injure Chrome Hearts and reap the benefit of Chrome Hearts’ goodwill.” If Chrome Hearts establishes willfulness, it may be entitled to enhanced remedies, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

Key Takeaways

This case may shape the scope of trademark protection available for design motifs that enjoy widespread use or are commonly perceived as decorative. The court’s resolution could define the boundaries of Chrome Hearts’ rights in its signature visual elements and establish broader precedent regarding the distinction between enforceable trademarks and ornamental design features in fashion. Notably, Chrome Hearts is seeking statutory damages of up to $2 million per trademark counterfeited, per type of good, underscoring the potential magnitude of liability for retailers selling products bearing marks that may be deemed infringing.

As the distinction between decoration and brand identity continues to evolve in fashion, companies should consider the following practical steps.

• Document source-identifying use. Brands relying on design motifs as trademarks should maintain robust records of consistent use, advertising efforts, and consumer recognition. This evidence can help demonstrate that a design functions as a source identifier rather than mere ornamentation. Consumer surveys, “look for” advertising campaigns, and consistent placement of marks can all strengthen a brand’s position.
• Monitor the marketplace. Companies with registered design-based trademarks should actively police the market for potentially infringing uses, particularly by major retailers whose scale of distribution may amplify consumer confusion. Failure to enforce trademark rights can weaken a mark’s distinctiveness and may support defenses such as acquiescence or abandonment.
• Assess the decorative vs. source-identifying spectrum. Retailers and product developers should evaluate whether design elements they adopt may be perceived as source-identifying for another brand, even if the intent is purely decorative. This is particularly true for common motifs like crosses, stars, or other widely used symbols. Federal registration and incontestable status do not eliminate defenses based on ornamental use, but they do shift the burden and increase litigation risk.
• Consider the willfulness calculus. Chrome Hearts’ allegations of deliberate and fraudulent conduct signal that it intends to pursue enhanced damages. Retailers should implement clearance procedures for products bearing design elements that may implicate third-party trademark rights. Documented, good-faith efforts to avoid infringement can mitigate exposure to willfulness-based enhancements.

The case is Chrome Hearts LLC v. Nordstrom, Inc., 2:26-cv-06078 (C.D. Cal.).