IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK NEWS: EVIE magazine sued for use of mark nearly identical to ELLE magazine mark, (May 8, 2025)

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

The complaint alleges that Evie Magazine, Inc. prominently displays the infringing mark positioned at the top of the EVIE Magazine cover in a manner that is nearly identical to Hachette’s use of its ELLE mark on ELLE Magazine.

A three-count complaint has been filed against Evie Magazine, Inc. (Evie) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Hachette Filipacchi Presse (Hachette) for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and federal unfair competition. According to the complaint, Evie had knowledge of Hachette’s ownership of the ELLE marks, the extraordinary fame and strength of the ELLE marks, and the incalculable goodwill associated therewith, and in bad faith adopted the infringing marks. The complaint also alleges that Evie’s actions will cause confusion, mistake, and deceive consumers, the public, and the trade regarding the source or origin of EVIE products/services and cause consumers to erroneously believe that the same are licensed by, or otherwise associated with Hachette (Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. Evie Magazine, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-03723-JMF (S.D. N.Y. filed May 5, 2025)).

Background. Hachette, is a renowned magazine publisher and lifestyle company, that provides goods and services in a wide variety of sectors, including the media, beauty, lifestyle, fashion, and entertainment industries under or in connection with its ELLE and ELLE formative marks (collectively, HFP products/services) owns all registered and unregistered intellectual property rights in and to its ELLE brand and the HFP products/services, including all registered and unregistered trademarks and trade dress rights. For decades, Hachette has been publishing the globally distributed fashion and lifestyle magazine ELLE magazine which is circulated to millions of readers throughout the world.

According to the complaint, neither Hachette nor any of Hachette’s authorized agents have consented to Evie’s use of the ELLE marks, nor have they consented to Evie’s use of any identical or confusingly similar marks (i.e., the infringing marks). Hachette alleged that like ELLE Magazine, the EVIE Magazine presents itself as a modern lifestyle publication, targeted at women, with editorial content relating to fashion, beauty, wellness, and relationships, among other things. Additionally, the infringing mark is positioned at the top of the EVIE Magazine cover, partially obscured by each model’s head an arrangement that not only mirrors the distinctive presentation of the ELLE mark(s) on the ELLE Magazine cover, but also intentionally appears in such a way that “EVIE” looks like “ELLE”.

Hachette also alleged that in further derogation of Hachette’s rights in and to the ELLE marks, Evie is pervasively using the infringing marks, in a stylization similar to that of Hachette, in connection with the promotion of EVIE products/services, including, on social media, via its @eviemagazine Instagram handle, among other places. On March 27, 2025, Hachette’s counsel sent a cease and desist letter to Evie, which, among other things, requested that Evie cease engaging in the infringing conduct. However, Hachette’s counsel has not received any substantive response to the cease and desist letter and Evie has continued to engage in infringing and illegal actions, even after having been placed on clear notice of Hachette’s well-established rights in its ELLE Marks. Thus, Hachette filed a complaint against Evie claiming trademark infringement of Hachette’s federally registered trademarks, trademark dilution, and federal unfair competition.

Claims. Hachette asserted three causes of action: (1) trademark infringement, (2) trademark dilution, and (3) federal unfair competition. Hachette alleged that Evie’s continued, knowing, and intentional use of the infringing marks without Hachette’s consent or authorization constitutes intentional infringement of Hachette’s federally registered ELLE Marks in violation of the Lanham Act. According to the complaint, Evie’s actions have diluted, and will continue to dilute the famous ELLE marks, and are likely to impair the distinctiveness, strength, and value of the ELLE marks, thereby injuring Hachette’s business and reputation. Additionally, Evie’s unauthorized use of the infringing marks was done with notice and full knowledge that such use was not authorized or licensed by Hachette or its authorized agents and with the deliberate intention to unfairly benefit from the incalculable goodwill inherent in Hachette’s famous ELLE marks. Therefore, Evie’s actions constitute willful dilution by blurring of Hachette’s ELLE marks in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

Hachette contended that Evie’s use of the infringing marks, particularly in combination with a style that is intended to mimic that of Hachette, has caused substantial injury to Hachette’s business and reputation. Hachette asserted that Evie has traded off the extensive goodwill of Hachette and its ELLE marks to induce customers to purchase EVIE products/services, and will continue to induce such customers to do the same. Hachette argued that such conduct has permitted, and will continue to permit Evie to make substantial sales and profits based on the goodwill and reputation of Hachette, which it has amassed through its nationwide marketing, advertising, sales, and consumer recognition. Therefore, Hachette has standing to maintain an action for unfair competition under the Lanham Act.

Remedies sought. Hachette is seeking a jury trial. Among other relief, Hachette seeks injunctive relief; complete accountings for all monies, profits, gains, and advantages derived by Evie from its use of the infringing marks; an order requiring Evie to deliver up for destruction to Hachette all EVIE products/services bearing the infringing marks and all packaging, labels, tags, advertising, and promotional materials and any other materials in the possession, custody, or control of Evie that infringe any of Hachette’s trademarks or other rights; compensatory damages; enhanced discretionary damages; attorney fees and costs; and such other relief as the district court deems proper.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-03723-JMF.

Judge: Furman, J.

Attorneys: Kerry B. Brownlee (Epstein Drangel LLP) for Hachette Filipacchi Presse.

Companies: Hachette Filipacchi Presse; Evie Magazine, Inc.

News: Trademark NewYorkNews