IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK NEWS: MillerKnoll, Inc. sues Sohnne, Inc. over copycat Herman Miller furniture designs, (Apr 16, 2025)

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

The complaint alleges counterfeiting, trademark dilution, and trademark infringement of MillerKnoll, Inc., Knoll, Inc., and the Noguchi Foundation’s asserted intellectual property rights under the Lanham Act, California law, and common law by the defendants.

MillerKnoll, Inc., Knoll, Inc., and The Isamu Noguchi Foundation and Garden Museum (collectively, plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Sohnne, Inc., PT Sohnne Furnitur Internasional, Equinox Technology LLC, Laurent Putra, and DOES 1-10 (collectively, defendants), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging counterfeiting, trademark dilution, trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition. According to the complaint, the defendants sell and offer for sale copies of plaintiffs’ well-known designs bearing no identifying information to permit initial or subsequent purchasers to distinguish them from the original genuine designs manufactured and sold by the plaintiffs. The complaint also alleged that the defendants’ products are not made to the plaintiffs’ exacting quality standards, and therefore are likely to dilute and tarnish the plaintiffs’ singular reputation for quality (MillerKnoll, Inc. v. Sohnne, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03320 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 14, 2025)).

Background. MillerKnoll, Inc., formerly Herman Miller, Inc. has been a leader in the highly competitive business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling high-quality, design-oriented furniture. Herman Miller, Inc. is renowned for its contemporary furniture designs, which have been deemed works of art and inducted into major museums across the United States. Since 1938, Knoll, Inc. has pioneered a variety of innovations in the design and production of furniture for office, home, and higher education settings. Knoll, Inc. is a global leader in the design and manufacture of commercial and residential furniture, accessories, and textiles. In 2021, Herman Miller, Inc. acquired Knoll, Inc. and changed its name to MillerKnoll, Inc. The Isamu Noguchi Foundation and Garden Museum (Noguchi Foundation) is a non-profit New York Education Corporation that has long-established trademark rights in its own names and multiple designs, which are protected by multiple U.S. registrations, which are licensed exclusively to MillerKnoll, Inc.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants operate the website www.sohnne.com, which was registered anonymously, and several affiliated social media sites to sell and offer for sale copies of plaintiffs’ well-known designs.

Counterfeiting. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants advertise their products using targeted internet advertising that expressly uses the plaintiffs’ trademarks (such as EAMES, albeit misspelled as EAMS) and that calls attention to their counterfeit copies of the plaintiffs’ iconic designs. The foregoing conduct of the defendants constitutes counterfeiting of the Herman Miller Registered Trademarks, the Knoll Registered Trademarks, and the Noguchi Registered Trademarks pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1114. Further, the defendants’ counterfeiting is likely to cause point-of-sale confusion, initial interest confusion, and post-sale confusion, resulting in lost sales to the plaintiffs, diminution in brand value, and other harms.

Trademark infringement. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants sell and offer for sale copies of furniture designs that are essentially identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from the registered marks owned by Herman Miller, Knoll, and the Noguchi Foundation on the website, and on social media sites. The plaintiffs argued that such exact or nearly exact copies of the plaintiffs’ registered product design trade dresses are likely to cause confusion at the point of sale and in post-sale contexts. The conduct of the defendants constitutes infringement of the Herman Miller Registered Trademarks, the Knoll Registered Trademarks, and the Noguchi Registered Trademarks pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1114 and infringement of the plaintiffs’ unregistered trademark and trade dress rights pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

False advertising. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants have made false and misleading statements of fact about their imitation products in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The statements misrepresent the nature, characteristics, and/or qualities of the defendant’s products, and are expressly false, impliedly false, or both. Specifically, the defendants misrepresent the reference price of the infringing products to mislead consumers to buy their products. The plaintiffs also contend that the defendants use copyrighted images taken directly from the plaintiffs’ websites or the sites of their authorized distributors such as Herman Miller’s wholly owned subsidiary, Design Within Reach, and even use images of genuine products on their website to create false associations with the plaintiffs.

Trademark dilution. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants’ use in commerce of the plaintiffs’ iconic designs and those of its trademarks that are famous is likely to create associations that will impair the distinctiveness of those marks. Further, as the defendants’ products are not made to the plaintiffs’ exacting quality standards, they are likely to dilute and tarnish the plaintiffs’ singular reputation for quality.

Unfair competition. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ unlawful and unfair business acts and practices have harmed them. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants have violated and continue to violate the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by engaging in unfair business acts and practices of engaging in false reference pricing in connection with such products such that the defendants gains an unfair advantage over lawfully competing sellers like the plaintiffs. According to the complaint, the defendants also violate the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) by offering a fictitious, rather than bona fide or genuine, former price comparison with respect to their knock-off products. Additionally, the defendants established an artificial, inflated price for their products so as to enable the subsequent offer of a large reduction to trick consumers into believing that they were getting a bargain. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ also violated the California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) because they made false and misleading statements of fact concerning the existence and amount of price reductions for their knock-off products.

Remedies sought. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial; damages suffered and expenses incurred because of the defendants’ misconduct, along with the defendants’ infringing profits; treble damages; statutory damages, awarding the maximum $2,000,000 per counterfeited registration; attorney fees; and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by the defendants’ misconduct.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-03320.

Judge: Thompson, T.

Attorneys: Jean-Paul Ciardullo and Ashley M. Koley (FOLEY & LARDNER LLP) for MillerKnoll, Inc.

Companies: MillerKnoll, Inc.; Knoll, Inc.; Sohnne, Inc.; PT Sohnne Furnitur Internasional; Equinox Technology LLC

News: Trademark CaliforniaNews