NY Esthetician Drops Lawsuit Accusing Kim Kardashian Of Ripping Off Her Black-Owned Beauty Business’ With ‘SKKN’
Feb. 28 2023, Published 4:00 p.m. ET
Kim Kardashian’s battle with a New York esthetician over the name of her beauty brand has come to an end, RadarOnline.com has learned.
According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, the company Beauty Concepts aka SKKN PLUS and SKKN+ have informed the court they are dropping all claims against the famous reality star and her companies.
Last year, Kardashian announced her KKW Beauty would be renamed SKKN By Kim. However, a New York esthetician named Cydnie Lunsford said the name infringed on her trademarks.
Lunsford founded a company called Beauty Concepts which she said owned the rights to the “SKKN+” trademark.
She said Kardashian’s brand would likely “quickly overshadow” her company and feared it would cause “significant and irreparable brand damage as a result of this confusion.”
Kardashian and her legal team accused Lunsford of a shakedown. Her attorney said, “We think the case is less about the law of trademarks and more about trying to leverage a settlement by threatening to harm Ms. Kardashian’s name and reputation. That’s not going to work and we look forward to presenting our case in court.”
The reality star’s lawyer said he had attempted to work out a settlement with Lunsford but they refused to allow Kardashian to use the mark.
“We pointed out that running a small esthetician business in Brooklyn does not give it the right to shut down a global skincare line,” Kardashian’s lawyer added. “Since we’ve done nothing wrong, we stood our ground.”
Previously, Kardashian’s lawyer said, “To our knowledge, Beauty Concepts sold no products under the SKKN+ name. Beauty Concepts asked that we drop the SKKN name. Of course, we said no.”
He said, “Beauty Concepts then challenged Ms. Kardashian’s trademark applications at the USPTO. Unsurprisingly, the USPTO rejected Beauty Concepts’ own SKKN+ mark saying that “skkn” just means “skin.” Undaunted, Beauty Concepts then tried to make its business seem more than it was – it leased a new storefront, changed its website, etc.
“We applaud Ms. Lunsford for being a small business owner and following her dreams,” the attorney said. “But that doesn’t give her the right to wrongfully claim that we’ve done something wrong.”
Lunsford dismissed the case with prejudice meaning she cannot refile the case at a later date.
