IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—C.D. Cal.: BED HEAD mark owner precludes former owner from selling hair products with similar trade dress, (Jan 14, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

A preliminary injunction was warranted because the FREAKIN’ GENIUS products are undeniably similar to BED HEAD products.

TIGI, the owner of the haircare brand BED HEAD was entitled to a preliminary injunction that prohibited a competitor Cool Freakin’ Genius LLC (CFG) from the use of allegedly infringing packaging on its haircare products, the federal district court in Los Angeles, has ruled. The district court held that all four Winter factors supported granting a preliminary injunction (TIGI Linea Corp. v. Cool Freakin Genius LLC, No. 2:25-cv-10761-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2026)).

Background. TIGI Linea Corp., TIGI Holdings Ltd., and Elida Beauty US (IP) LLC, (together, TIGI), own the haircare brand BED HEAD, which was co-founded in 1996 by Bruno Mascolo, his brothers, and his wife Kyara Mascolo. BED HEAD branded products consist of shampoos, conditioners, and styling products such as mousses, sprays, and creams. Although originally developed for exclusive use in salons, BED HEAD products are directly available to consumers through in-store and online retailers. The BED HEAD brand is extremely successful and has also garnered a significant following amongst celebrities and other content creators, and has featured in many leading fashion and beauty publications. TIGI claims trade dress protection in its entire line of BED HEAD products (BH Trade Dress). TIGI also claims trade dress protection in two specific products: (1) SMALL TALK, a thickening cream (ST Trade Dress); and (2) QUEEN FOR A DAY, a thickening spray (QFD Trade Dress) (together, with the BH and ST Trade Dresses, “TIGI Trade Dresses”).

In 2009, after non-party Unilever purchased TIGI and the BED HEAD brand from the Mascolo family, Bruno and Kyara Mascolo signed a ten-year non-compete agreement. In 2015, Kyara Mascolo founded CFG and began selling cosmetics. In 2023, after Kyara Mascolo’s non-compete agreement expired, CFG began developing haircare products. In July 2025, CFG launched its FREAKIN’ GENIUS haircare brand at a beauty product trade show. CFG sells FREAKIN’ GENIUS products directly to salons, and directly to consumers on its website, coolfreakingenius.com, and through Amazon’s online marketplace. In late July 2025, TIGI learned of the FREAKIN’ GENIUS products. On November 4, 2025, TIGI sent CFG a cease-and-desist letter. As the parties were unable to resolve their differences, in November 2025, TIGI a filed a trade dress infringement lawsuit against CFG. TIGI now moves for a preliminary injunction, asking the district court to enjoin CFG’s use of allegedly infringing packaging on its haircare products.

Preliminary injunction standard. In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that he will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary relief is not granted; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and 4) that the injunction is in the public interest (Winter factors).

Likelihood of success on the merits. To succeed on a trade dress infringement claim, a plaintiff must prove that its claimed dress is (1) nonfunctional and (2) distinctive, and (3) that defendant’s product creates a likelihood of consumer confusion.

The district court found that each TIGI Trade Dress definition requires that the bottle head and the bottle itself must be contrasting colors, and that the colors themselves must be fluorescent or metallic. Moreover, each definition also requires the presence of a “two-word, two-line, irreverent, primary trademark” and an “irreverent and provocative product name in all capital letters.” These elements serve a purely aesthetic purpose that does not yield a utilitarian advantage for TIGI or its consumers. Further, the TIGI Trade Dresses are inherently distinctive because they serve to identify and set apart BED HEAD products. Each TIGI Trade Dress definition contains aesthetic elements. All three require bright, contrasting bottle and cap/actuator colors, and all three require “irreverent” product names or primary trademarks. While each of these elements may have “subsidiary functions,” such as making BED HEAD district court found that products stand out on a product shelf, their “predominant function remains” identifying a BED HEAD product. Thus, TIGI is likely to show that the TIGI Trade Dresses are non-functional and distinctive.

Using the factors set down in AMF Inc v. Sleekcraft Boats, the district court analyzed the question of whether two marks are confusingly similar.

Strength of the marks. The district court found the TIGI Trade Dresses inherently distinctive, and both conceptually and commercially strong. The district court noted that the TIGI Trade Dresses are not merely “descriptive” or “suggestive,” as the combination of contrasting colors and two-word irreverent marks in no way “describes” or “suggests” haircare products. TIGI also provided a plethora of evidence supporting actual marketplace recognition of BED HEAD products. Thus, this factor weighed heavily for TIGI.

Relatedness of goods, marketing channels, and degree of care. The district court noted that both BED HEAD and FREAKIN’ GENIUS products are offered in the haircare and beauty field and their product lines include shampoos, conditioners, and styling products. It is undeniable that these products are extremely similar and “are offered in the same general industry. Thus, the relatedness of goods and marketing channel factors weighed heavily for TIGI. The district court also found that the degree of care factor weighed slightly for TIGI.

Similarity. The district court noted that FREAKIN’ GENIUS products are undeniably similar to BED HEAD products bearing TIGI Trade Dresses. Each FREAKIN’ GENIUS product, like its BED HEAD counterpart, has contrasting bottle and cap/actuator colors. Moreover, each FREAKIN’ GENIUS product matches, in almost identical contrasting colors, with a BED HEAD product. The district court noted that given the physical similarities of the parties’ bottles and the fact that the parties’ products served the same function, consumers would likely think that both products were produced by the same company. TIGI also provided evidence that CFG has marketed its products grouped together, leaving consumers with the potential impression that all the products are BED HEAD products. Therefore, the similarity factor also weighed heavily for TIGI.

Actual confusion. The TIGI provided ample evidence of actual confusion, which included a declaration testimony that demonstrates confusion among consumers, industry professionals, and influencers. At least two industry professionals thought that TIGI was operating CFG’s booth at the July 2025 trade conference. Secondly, TIGI also conducted a survey that revealed confusion levels ranging from 21.5% to 48.5%, depending on the specific product. The district court rejected CFG’s objections to the survey evidence as they were all predicated on the false assertion that FREAKIN’ GENIUS products are sold only to and at salons. The district court concluded that TIGI’s survey considered general consumers as well as salon purchasers is not a defect. Accordingly, the district court concluded that there is substantial evidence of actual confusion, and that this factor weighed heavily for TIGI.

Intent. When the Mascolo family owned BED HEAD, Bruno Mascolo acknowledged that the “vivid color” and “bottle shape” of BED HEAD products “differentiates BED HEAD from all others,” while Kyara Mascolo admitted that “women already thought of BED HEAD as being fun and cool, so we were easily able to slip into the same marketing strategy of using unusual shapes and names.” Therefore, it is simply uncredible for them to claim that they created strikingly similar products with no actual or constructive intent to adopt those same aesthetic principles. Thus, this factor also weighed in favor of TIGI.

Irreparable harm. Having established a likelihood of success on the merits, TIGI is entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm.

Balance of equities. The district court noted that TIGI will likely suffer irreparable reputational injury from CFG’s continued infringement for which TIGI cannot be adequately compensated with money damages. Thus, the balance of equities tips in favor of TIGI.

Public interest. Lastly, the public has an “interest in protecting trademarks.” Thus, the district court found that the public interest weighed in favor of granting a preliminary injunction.

Accordingly, the district court granted TIGI’s request for a preliminary injunction.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-10761-ODW-AS.

Judge: Wright, O.

Attorneys: Alec Johnson (Adams, Duerk and Kamenstein LLP) for Tigi Linea Corp. Donald A. Miller (Loeb and Loeb LLP) for Cool Freakin' Genius LLC.

Companies: TIGI Linea Corp.: TIGI Holdings Ltd.: Elida Beauty US (IP) LLC: Cool Freakin’ Genius LLC

Cases: Trademark CaliforniaNews