- Angela Gonzalez-Rodriguez
-
|
New York – Kim Kardashian has won the legal battle against Missguided.
The American reality show star took the British fashion retailer to court
in California claiming it copied her outfits and use her fame to sell them.
Earlier this year, Kardashian condemned various online fashion retailers
for copying her designs and selling cheap versions within hours of her
being pictured wearing them. She said to be “devastated” to see her
designer clothes made into cheap knock-offs.
Back to February, the American celebrity tweeted: “It’s devastating to
see these fashion companies rip off designs that have taken the blood,
sweat and tears of true designers who have put their all into their own
original ideas. I’ve watched these companies profit off my husband’s work
for years and now that it’s also affecting designers who have been so
generous to give me access to their beautiful works, I can no longer sit
silent. Only two days ago, I was privileged enough to wear a one-of-a-kind
vintage Mugler dress and in less than 24 hours it was knocked off and
thrown up on a site – but it’s not for sale. You have to sign up for a
waitlist because the dress hasn’t even been made to sell yet.”
The US- subsidiary of British fashion e-tailer Missguided – Missguided
USA – failed to defend itself, not even responding to her lawsuit. As a
result, a default judgement was made on July,3, awarding Kardashian West
2.7 million dollars in damages as well as 59,600 dollars in attorney fees.
A ruling delivered at the California Central District Court by Judge
Virginia A Phillips added Missguided USA is banned from using Kardashian
West’s “trademarks in connection with the sale, marketing or distribution
of its products”.
Kardashian West’s original lawsuit made the argument that Missguided
profited off of her brand and likeness. The suit included images from
Missguided’s website and Instagram that depicted Kardashian West and her
outfits. In one example, customers could click on photos of her and be
taken to a Missguided page selling a similar look.
“Missguided’s use of Plaintiffs’ marks is likely to cause consumers to
mistakenly believe that Plaintiffs are associated with Missguided, or that
they sponsor or endorse Missguided and its websites,” the lawsuit states.
“And in fact, consumers have already expressed such confusion, suggesting
in social media posts and online articles that Plaintiffs must be in a
‘collaboration’ with Missguided.”
