Kettle Discusses Trademark Dispute Between Molly Sims and Jones Road Beauty

Sims, founder of YSE Beauty, alleged that Jones Road’s newly launched “Wide Awake” concealer closely resembled YSE Beauty’s previously launched “Wide Awake” eye cream in both name and marketing approach. Following Sims’s public comments on social media, Jones Road announced it would rename the product and stated that a trademark search had not identified ownership of the name before launch.

Kamanta characterized Sims’s public response as potentially problematic from a trademark law standpoint. Kamanta said the social media callout was a “very risky move,” especially if she did so “without a prior legal assessment.”

She further noted, “We saw several comments on [Sims’s] TikTok post pointing out that Wide Awake isn’t a Yise trademark and, in fact, is associated with and used by a number of third-party brands.” Kamanta added, “Her approach may have backfired.”

Addressing the trademark strength of the phrase “Wide Awake,” Kamanta explained that some terms may be too descriptive or widely used to function as protectable trademarks. Working with client across media, technology, fashion, and beauty, Kamanta noted that some names just simply cannot be trademarked because of “their weak significance.” 

According to Kamanta, “From a trademark perspective, the Jones Road team could have taken the position that Wide Awake has deeply diluted significance as a source identifier due to its use on a variety of eyewear and eyecare products.”

She further stated, “This nonexclusive use goes to the issue of whether Yise’s label acquired secondary meaning as a trademark, as opposed to being just a cute marketing claim highlighting a product feature.” Suggesting that this dispute may be viewed more as a public relations issue than a legal one, Kettle praised Jones Road’s handling of the situation.

She said, “Bobbi Brown responded deftly here, making it clear that her team ran a clearance search for Wide Awake and that the search did not disclose any entity’s ownership of the name for cosmetic products.”

Kamanta additionally noted that Brown’s response demonstrated due diligence while “[subverting] Yise’s claim of ownership in an arguably descriptive mark, without coming out and overtly denying Yise’s claims, which could be perceived as combative.”

Read the full article here.