Kylie Jenner, Owner of cosmetic brand Kylie Cosmetics is being sued in New York by Alabama-based Sheree Cosmetics which claims she sold eye shadow similar to its own.
But Kylie’s lawyers wants the case moved or dropped from US Southern District of New York federal court because all of the defendants are based in California.
In papers filed January 3, her lawyers believe the move would save money and be ‘in the interest of justice’ as the suit could drag on ‘for the next year or longer’.
Cost-conscious Kylie Jenner, worth $900 million, wants a lawsuit by a makeup company claiming she copied a range of their eye shadow to be moved closer to her California home to save money.
The suit, filed in New York federal court, alleges Jenner’s company Kylie Cosmetics copied the Born To Sparkle glitter eye shadow palette that had been made 10 months earlier by Sheree Cosmetics.
However, Kylie’s lawyers filed papers on January 3 asking the US Southern District of New York court to throw out the lawsuit, or at the very least move it to California where the defendants all live ‘in the interest of justice’.
Kylie Jenner, 21, is seen above wearing glitter liquid eye shadow called Born To Sparkle that is identical to one made by Sheree Cosmetics, a federal lawsuit filed in New York alleges
Sheree Cosmetics launched its Born To Sparkle range in October 2017 shortly after the fledgling company from Spanish Fort, Alabama, began.
In July 2018, Kylie, of Hidden Hills, California posted to Instagram Kylie Cosmetics would be releasing a #21 collection of makeup products the next month to mark her 21st birthday. This included Born To Sparkle liquid eye shadow.
Sheree Cosmetics claimed this was grounds for a lawsuit citing trademark infringement.
But in papers obtained by DailyMail.com in, Kylie’s lawyers state the case, which could last a year or longer, should not be heard in New York but California.
They say: ‘Plaintiff is a Missouri limited liability company. It is based in Alabama. Defendants are all based in and near Los Angeles, California, where their relevant witnesses reside and work and where their documentary records are maintained.’
It added: ‘It will…be highly more efficient and much less expensive for (1) Plaintiff – who, again, is not even based in New York – to simply retain local representation in the Central District of California than it would be for (2) all of Defendants’ principals, witnesses, attorneys and support staff members to travel to Manhattan and stay here during the duration of trial and also for (3) Defendants to have their respective lawyers fly here, stay overnight and miss one to two days in the office for every court appearance and other proceeding throughout the entire pendency of this case for the next year or longer.’
Kylie Cosmetics released the ‘Born To Sparkle’ eye shadow on August 6 last year. But court documents show Sheree Cosmetics only filed the trademark for ‘Born To Sparkle’ 24 days later on August 30.
And that is another reason Kylie’s lawyers want the suit dropped, because they say a federally-registered trademark was not in place when the infringement allegedly took place.
Herrmann said, ‘We feel the need to protect our business. We worked really hard for it and we just want to make sure we protect Sheree Cosmetics and our ideas.
Sheree Cosmetics founder Tiffany Herrmann report that she felt taking Kylie to court was the only option to protect her company based in Spanish Fort, Alabama
Herrmann said she feared Kylie’s company may have damaged sales for Sheree Cosmetics’ Born To Sparkle range.
She said: ‘We are a truly self-made business and I wonder who was led to the wrong Born To Sparkle palette when searching for ours.
‘As far as an outcome we just want to make sure that Born To Sparkle is protected and that what is right prevails.’
But in the January 3 filing, Kylie’s lawyers included a statement from Jennifer Cohan, chief digital officer for Kardashian Jenner Communications, where she stressed Kylie Cosmetics did nothing wrong.
Cohan said: ‘Based on….my three plus years professional involvement in Kylie Cosmetics specifically, I confidently conclude that the alleged look and feel of Sheree Cosmetics LLC’s packaging, including especially (but without limitation) its printing of short quotes or other phrases thereon, is in no way distinctive or otherwise unique to the plaintiff.
‘To the contrary such common place characteristics are exceedingly widespread in our industry and in no way differentiate Sheree from any other in this highly competitive market.’