Design Disputes: Unraveling the Tapestry of Legal Trends for Litigation in the Furniture and Design Worlds

For industry stakeholders, understanding trends in recent lawsuits is crucial to navigating the complex landscape ahead for the industry. The below cases offer valuable insights for designers, influencers, retailers, suppliers, and other market participants alike into the legal risks and opportunities in the field for the foreseeable future.

1. Ensure Comparisons in Advertising are Not Misleading

Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Carrot Cart, Inc. D/B/A Dupe.com, No. 1:24-cv-6597 (SDNY Complaint Filed August 30, 2024)

West Elm Berra Chair and Dupe.com Promotional Ad[i]

Retailer Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (WSI) filed a lawsuit against Carrot Cart, Inc. D/B/A Dupe.com, a website and browser extension that purports to allow online shoppers to use a “reverse image”-type search function to find duplicate or “dupe” products online for a lower price. In the complaint, WSI accuses Dupe.com of false advertising, unfair competition, and copyright infringement and takes issue with Dupe.com’s marketing practices, which allegedly falsely disparages WSI and its brands, products, and business practices, as well as infringes WSI’s intellectual property. Among other things, WSI complains about promotional videos posted online by Dupe.com, which allegedly used copyrighted images of WSI products to claim that WSI brands (i.e., Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn, and West Elm) buy products from the same factories, call them different names, and sell them at varying prices, despite the same products being available for “80-90% percent off” on third-parties’ websites.

WSI disputes the allegations made by Dupe.com in its advertisements and claims that WSI produces most of its products in-house. The parties are currently litigating Dupe.com’s motion to dismiss, which accuses WSI of attempting to “coerce Dupe.com into shutting down its service” even though Dupe.com “empower[s] consumers by providing them with transparency and choice in their purchasing decisions.” In its pending motion to dismiss, Dupe.com argues that its use of WSI copyrighted product images are fair use. Dupe.com also disputes that WSI has adequately pleaded its other Lanham Act and state law false advertising and unfair competition claims. The parties are now waiting for the Court to decide the motion to dismiss.

Takeaways

Companies referencing other brands’ products in marketing materials should ensure that their references to or comparisons with other brands’ products are truthful, substantiated, not misleading, and defensible. Use of copyrighted images without permission should be avoided and companies that want to proceed despite the risks should consider obtaining opinions on the strength of a fair use defense. On the other hand, companies that want to reference third parties’ products while minimizing the risks could also consider creating their own photographs or obtaining licensed images from third parties instead.

2. Protect Your Aesthetic If You Believe Protectable Content is Copied

Sydney Nicole LLC et al. v. Alyssa Sheil LLC et al., No. 1:24-cv-423 (W.D. Tex. Complaint Filed April 22, 2024)

Gifford’s “Beige Girl Aesthetic”[ii]

In a first-of-its-kind social media dispute, influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford, filed a lawsuit against another influencer, Alyssa Sheil, asserting claims of copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and misappropriation of Gifford’s identity. The core of the complaint is Gifford’s allegation that Sheil copied her “neutral, beige, and cream aesthetic” as used in apartment design, hair style, font, and camera angles, and replicated them through competing social media posts. Regarding the copyright claim, Gifford specifically alleges that Sheil copied her social media posts’ content by promoting the same products and including similar photographs, videos, and text in support. For the trade dress infringement claim, Gifford accuses Sheil of imitating her allegedly distinctive trade dress, which includes a specific monochromatic cream, grey, and neutral-beige color scheme, overall aesthetic, and the styling of products with modern minimal backdrops. For the misappropriation claim, Gifford alleges that Sheil imitated her outfits, poses, hairstyles, makeup, and voice and passed herself off as Gifford in a manner that confused social media followers.

Gifford seeks damages, including for “mental anguish” and lost profits. After litigating a failed motion to dismiss in February 2025, the parties recently informed the court that they were in settlement talks and would agree to engage in formal mediation in an attempt to settle the case.

Takeaways

Although an aesthetic or “vibe” is not independently protectable under intellectual property laws, if influencers can identify specific protectable elements in videos, images, or text that were allegedly copied without permission, they may be able to at least survive the pleadings stages in litigations. While there are likely to be legal and public relations backlash to content creators attempting to exclusively own color schemes or looks, influencers should try to ensure some level of originality in their content and to avoid crossing the line from non-actionable inspiration to actionable copying.

3. Know Your Inspiration and Your Source

Judd Foundation v. Clement Designs, Inc. et al., No. 2:24-CV-02496 (C.D. Cal. Complaint Filed March 27, 2024)

Donald Judd’s La Mansana Table and Chair 84 v. Accused Clement Designs Products[iii]

The Judd Foundation, named after renowned minimalist artist Donald Judd, sued Clement Designs, Inc. for trademark, trade dress and copyright infringement, and other related claims. The dispute arose from a YouTube video in which Kim Kardashian, during a tour of her company office, referred to furniture as “Donald Judd tables [and chairs],” when in fact, they were designed by Clement Designs in the “style of” Donald Judd. In its complaint, the Foundation argues that Clement Designs’ furniture closely resembles Judd’s La Mansana Table and Chair 84 designs, and that Clement Designs used the registered DONALD JUDD word mark without permission to promote its “nearly identical” designs to consumers. The Foundation goes on to allege that Clement Designs’ conduct constitutes trademark infringement and false designation of origin of Donald Judd’s trade dress rights in the La Mansana Table and Chair 84 designs, trademark infringement of the registered DONALD JUDD trademark, false designation of origin and unfair competition, and false advertising under various federal and state laws. The Foundation also claims that Clement Designs infringed the Foundation’s copyright by including a copy of a copyrighted photograph of the La Mansana Table and Chair 84 designs in a design proposal and order form provided by Clement Designs to their customer.

Clement Designs disputes the allegations and has countered that the tables differ in dimensions and materials. The parties are now litigating motions to dismiss. Among other things, Clement Designs argues that the Foundation (1) failed to plead an actionable trade dress infringement claim due to lack of particularity and failure to plead non-functionality, secondary meaning, and a likelihood of confusion; (2) failed to plead an actionable trademark infringement claim over the phrase “in the style of Donald Judd” due to the doctrine of nominative fair use and failure to plead a likelihood of confusion; (3) failed to plead false advertising due to a lack of allegedly false statements or actionable advertising; and (4) lacks standing to bring false advertising claims. In early March 2025, the court informed the parties that the motions to dismiss would be decided soon and without oral argument.

Takeaways

While inspiration and “in the style” of designs are common throughout the furniture and design industry, designers and creators should conduct adequate due diligence to ensure that their works are not infringing on others’ intellectual property rights and that any references to third-party designs or designers are defensible. On the other hand, to strengthen future infringement claims against copies, creators of original works should pursue IP registrations early and take timely action against infringements, as failure to do so could result in laches or other equitable doctrines barring future claims. Additionally, customers entering into service agreements for custom furniture and other design services should consider including language addressing and balancing the risk of potential infringement claims, including through representations, warranties, and indemnity provisions.

4. Terms of Use May Provide Some Protection Against Copying

Design with Friends, Inc. et al v. Target Corporation, No. 1:21-cv-1376 (D. Del. Complaint Filed September 28, 2021; Settled 2024)

Design with Friends’ Virtual Showroom[iv]

Design with Friends, Inc., a company that provides a free online app to help consumers design, furnish, and decorate baby nurseries, sued Target Corporation, accusing the retailer of copying its online room planning tool in a manner that led to copyright infringement and breach of contract. The crux of the action involved claims that Target reverse-engineered Design’s nursery room design tool and subsequently released a similar tool. Design claimed that Target’s product infringed copyrights in the source code and graphical user interface for Design’s tool. Design also alleged that Target was liable for breach of contract and violated Design’s website terms of service by reverse-engineering and/or copying the website’s content. At the summary judgment stage, the court found that Design’s room planner was copyrightable due to a unique combination of design elements, such as specific wall thickness and camera angles, that together create a distinctive look and feel, but ultimately ruled that a jury needed to decide the core copyright question of substantial similarity. For the breach of contract claim, the court also found that there were open questions of fact, including whether Target had sufficient notice of the terms of service to render them enforceable, and whether Target accessed and used Design’s website in a manner that was a breach of those terms. Although most of the claims survived summary judgment, the parties ultimately reached a confidential settlement on the eve of trial in late 2024.

Takeaways

Companies creating alternative tools to in-market offerings should evaluate the possible risks of IP infringement, breach of contract, and other related claims from competitors whose products are reviewed or reverse-engineered in the development process. On the other hand, companies that rely on terms of service to prohibit reverse-engineering, scraping, or other commercial use of their website content, should consider using clickwrap agreements that require affirmative consent to strengthen the enforceability of those terms in court. Records of users’ acceptance to terms should also be tracked and maintained for evidentiary purposes.

5. Review and Scrub Your Websites and Promotional Materials After Vendor Relationships End

Crypton LLC v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-12201 (E.D. Mich. Complaint Filed August 21, 2024)

Pottery Barn Website Referencing Crypton Fabric Treatment[v]

Fabric company, Crypton LLC, sued retailer and Pottery Barn brand owner, Williams-Sonoma, Inc., for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition for allegedly continuing to use the CRYPTON trademark without permission after switching to a different vendor for fabric treatment chemistry. From 2016 to 2022, the parties had an agreement in which Crypton supplied its performance stain-resistant fabric treatment to WSI through a textile manufacturer. However, in 2022, WSI began working with a different vendor for fabric treatment chemistry. After the vendor change, WSI allegedly continued to reference CRYPTON on its website and in promotional materials in a manner that Crypton claims violates its trademark rights. WSI in turn filed counterclaims against Crypton for trademark infringement and unfair competition on the basis that Crypton continued to use the POTTERY BARN trademark on its website, including promotional content and store locators, despite the parties no longer working together. The parties are now engaged in discovery, with summary judgment motions due to be filed later this year.

Takeaways

When business or supplier relationships end, companies should review all website and promotional materials content to either remove references to the former partner’s trademarks or to ensure that any remaining references are defensible and not misleading as to origin or source. To minimize risks of future infringement actions, parties entering into major agreements may want to negotiate terms for rules and restrictions around post-termination references to the partner for historical, nominative, or other marketing purposes.