Kim Kardashian’s shapewear brand, SKIMS, is facing a trademark infringement lawsuit from a New York-based designer.

Trademark Dispute

Denise Cesare, owner of the apparel brand Fits Everybody To A T, alleges that SKIMS knowingly used the name ‘Fits Everybody’ for its shapewear line despite repeated warnings about her existing trademark. The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York.

Prior Claim and Market Dominance

Cesare claims SKIMS leveraged its substantial financial resources and celebrity influence to dominate the market, disregarding her prior claim to the name. She established her brand nearly a decade ago, initially selling swimwear and clothing under the ‘Fits’ name.

Financial Impact and 'Reverse Confusion'

SKIMS, launched in 2019, quickly gained prominence, with its ‘Fits Everybody’ line reportedly generating between $700 million and $900 million in revenue. The lawsuit argues that the similarity between the brand names creates “reverse confusion,” leading consumers to believe there is an affiliation between the two businesses.

Trademark Law and First Use

Cesare’s legal team emphasizes that trademark law prioritizes first use, regardless of company size or fame. They contend that SKIMS intentionally proceeded with the infringing name, anticipating it could overcome any legal challenge from a smaller competitor.

Previous USPTO Denials

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) previously denied SKIMS’s trademark application for ‘Fits Everybody’ twice due to Cesare’s existing trademark. The complaint describes the situation as a larger company attempting to overshadow a smaller business.

Impact on Small Business

Cesare’s attorney, Jessica Mathews, stated that her client built her brand from the ground up and was subsequently “swamped and eclipsed” by SKIMS’s marketing reach. The lawsuit details how SKIMS continued to expand its use of the name even after receiving objections.

Cesare alleges her business has suffered, with search engine rankings declining significantly. This case highlights the challenges small businesses face when competing with large corporations and celebrity endorsements. The core argument centers on trademark law protecting established brands from unfair exploitation.