Unpacking Kylie Jenner Lip Kit Lawsuits

Kylie Jenner debuted Kylie Cosmetics in 2015 with just one product: the Lip Kit. The matte liquid lipstick and lip liner in each set were modelled after Jenner's well known overlined pout. Within minutes, the first batch was sold out. The remainder is history from the influencer era. The crowded market for celebrity beauty brands was not yet what it is today. The Lip Kit promoted exclusivity, aspiration, and the Instagram-perfect look in addition to makeup. Rapid scrutiny, however, frequently accompanies rapid growth. 

The speed at which Kylie Cosmetics grew also demonstrates how the commercial value of a product can become inseparable from the person selling it. The Lip Kit was not simply a lipstick and liner sold together; the product's commercial value was generated by years of public exposure, carefully cultivated aesthetics and audience's emotional investment in Jenner herself. In this sense, the brand raises a fundamental question for intellectual property law: when commercial success is built upon a person's identity, which aspects of that success should the law protect, and where should that protection end?

The “KYLIE” Trademark Battle

In 2016, Kylie Minogue officially resisted Jenner's attempt to trademark the name "KYLIE" for branding and cosmetics in 2016. As a well-known performer for decades before Jenner's brand existed, Minogue's legal team contended that she already owned Kylie-related trademarks in the US and the website www.kylie.com. Jenner was referred to in the filing as a "secondary reality television  personality," a description that naturally went viral online. 

The legal distinction here is between owning a name as a personal attribute and owning a name as a commercial identifier. Trademark law does not ordinarily grant someone universal ownership of a word; instead, it protects signs used to distinguish particular goods or services in the marketplace. The central concern is whether consumers might be confused about the origin of a product or mistakenly believe that two businesses are connected. The United States Patent and Trademark Office considers factors including the similarity of the marks and the relationship between the goods or services involved. A shared first name, therefore, does not automatically establish infringement, just as being famous does not automatically entitle someone to exclusive control over that name.

Minogue had spent decades establishing an association between her name and her entertainment career, while Jenner's growing influence had given the same name a different commercial significance. Both had legitimate interests in protecting the reputations they had cultivated, but neither interest necessarily justified excluding the other from every possible use of the word. The challenge for trademark law is to protect consumers and established commercial goodwill without converting familiarity into ownership. If the law granted exclusive rights over ordinary names simply because a public figure had become sufficiently famous, it could create an unequal marketplace in which recognition itself became a means of restricting other people's commercial opportunities.

The law must therefore negotiate competing interests: the individual's investment in their identity, the consumer's interest in clear commercial information and the public's interest in keeping ordinary language and cultural resources available for others to use.

The eventual procedural outcome is important because trademark disputes do not always end with a court declaring one party morally or legally superior to the other. Minogue's opposition was withdrawn in January 2017, and the proceedings were terminated without a decision on the merits. Jenner subsequently obtained a federal registration for KYLIE covering specified services, including advertising, endorsement, entertainment and fashion-related services. The dispute should therefore not be described simply as a definitive ruling that Jenner could never trademark the name. Rather, it demonstrates how the scope of a trademark application, earlier rights and negotiations between parties can shape the practical outcome.

This distinction matters ethically as well as legally. A settlement or withdrawal can resolve a commercial disagreement without establishing a general principle that would apply to every similar dispute. It may reflect a compromise between parties with competing interests, a decision to avoid the expense of litigation or an agreement about the boundaries of future commercial activity. Public commentary often reduces these cases to a winner and a loser, but the legal process is frequently less conclusive. The absence of a final ruling on the merits also means that we should be cautious about treating the outcome as proof that either party's entire position was correct.

Copyright & Packaging Claims

Kylie Cosmetics was also accused in separate instances of copying design concepts from independent creators. One notable lawsuit alleged similarities between Kylie Cosmetics’ drip-style logo and artwork created by a freelance designer, Vlada Haggerty. 

Copyright introduces a different set of questions because it protects original creative expression rather than commercial identity itself. Under United States law, an original photograph or sufficiently creative artwork may receive copyright protection once it is fixed in a tangible medium. However, the underlying idea, aesthetic or general concept is not protected in the same way. This distinction is essential in beauty and fashion, where artists frequently draw upon shared visual conventions: glossy lips, metallic pigments, dripping textures and dramatic close-up photography are not necessarily exclusive to any one creator. The legal question is whether a particular work's protected expression has been copied, rather than whether two campaigns happen to occupy a similar aesthetic territory.

The ethical difficulty is that creative work can be commercially valuable long before its creator has the resources or recognition necessary to defend it. An independent makeup artist may spend years developing a distinctive visual style, building a portfolio and establishing a recognisable signature. A celebrity-owned cosmetics company, meanwhile, may have access to professional photographers, marketing teams, lawyers and an enormous audience. If a similar image is subsequently used to promote a much larger brand, the independent creator may struggle to compete for public recognition, even if their original work helped establish the visual language being used. The imbalance is not simply about whether copying occurred; it is also about who has the means to profit from an idea, who receives credit for the creative labour involved and who is left to defend their contribution after the commercial value has already been extracted.

In the US the core copyright infringement elements are:

• “original works of authorship”

• can show “substantial similarity” between the copyrighted work and the defendant’s work

• the defendant sought “commercial advantage or private financial gain”

These elements should not, however, be treated as a complete statement of the legal test for copyright infringement. Under US law, a claimant generally needs to establish ownership of a valid copyright and copying of protected elements of the work. Copying can involve questions of access and probative similarity, while actionable infringement requires substantial similarity in protectable expression. Commercial gain can be relevant to remedies and certain infringement questions, but it is not a universal requirement that must independently be proved in every case. This is why the distinction between inspiration and infringement is so important: an artist cannot claim exclusive ownership of an entire aesthetic, but another party cannot necessarily reproduce the artist's protected creative expression simply because it has been adapted for a different campaign.

The Haggerty dispute also illustrates why public acknowledgement and legal permission are not interchangeable. Crediting an artist can help restore recognition and direct attention towards the original creator, but attribution alone does not automatically authorise the commercial use of copyrighted work. Conversely, a resemblance between two images does not automatically establish infringement; the precise works, the protectable elements and the circumstances of their creation matter. The reported resolution of the dispute through an agreement and public credit illustrates a possible practical compromise, but the full terms were not publicly established. It would therefore be misleading to present the episode as a judicial finding that infringement had occurred or to assume that credit was the only condition of settlement.

The ethical question nevertheless extends beyond the minimum requirements of copyright law. A company may be able to defend its conduct by arguing that it borrowed a general concept rather than copying a protected work, yet this does not necessarily resolve whether it acted fairly towards the person whose creative labour it benefited from. Legal permission establishes a boundary of enforceable rights; it does not always settle questions of professional courtesy, fair compensation or responsible commercial practice. In industries that depend heavily on visual innovation, businesses have an interest in encouraging creative experimentation, but they also benefit from maintaining an environment in which independent artists can afford to continue creating. A market that rewards imitation more generously than original work may be legally functional while remaining ethically impoverished.

Popularity of these cases

Kylie Jenner’s brand existed at the intersection of:

• Celebrity capitalism

• Influencer culture

• Beauty standards

• Social media virality

Social media also changed the way these disputes were experienced by the public. Traditionally, intellectual property conflicts were largely confined to legal correspondence, court filings and specialist reporting. Influencer culture transformed them into public performances in which audiences could examine the competing images, express their allegiances and form judgements before the legal questions had been resolved. In Haggerty's case, the visual comparison between the images made the dispute immediately understandable to an audience that might otherwise have little knowledge of copyright law.

However, public opinion and legal liability operate according to different standards. An image can appear strikingly similar to another without necessarily satisfying the legal test for infringement, just as conduct that is technically lawful can still provoke legitimate ethical criticism. Social media tends to reward certainty and outrage, whereas legal analysis often requires uncertainty, context and careful distinctions between what can be proved and what merely appears convincing.

This creates a peculiar problem for celebrity brands: the same online visibility that generates commercial value can also intensify reputational damage when accusations emerge. A legal dispute may be resolved privately, but the public narrative can continue long afterwards, with neither party necessarily able to control how the story is remembered.

Should celebrity status translate into broader commercial control?

Celebrities generally benefit from the right of publicity, which refers to the legal right to control commercial use of their name and image, which generally most would consider to be clearly acceptable. However, this line might start to become murkier when the 'brand' is much broader, like a common name, a general aesthetic, or a cultural trend. 

Celebrities invest time, labour, and money into cultivating their brand. From that perspective, their name is intellectual property. If a public figure devotes decades of their life into building recognition, is it not reasonable for them to protect it? In 2026, personal identity is a business asset and denying them protection would arguably undermine modern creative industries.

The right of publicity adds another dimension to this debate because it concerns the commercial use of a person's identity rather than ownership of a creative work or the registration of a trademark. In the United States, the scope of this right varies by jurisdiction, but it can protect aspects of an individual's persona, including their name and likeness, against certain unauthorised commercial uses. Its purpose is to recognise that a person's identity can acquire economic value and that others should not automatically be entitled to exploit that value for their own gain. Yet this protection must coexist with freedom of expression, legitimate reporting and the ability to refer to public figures without seeking their permission.

The distinction becomes especially significant when we consider the difference between exploiting a celebrity's identity and commenting on it. A company using a celebrity's photograph to imply an endorsement raises different concerns from a journalist writing about that celebrity, or an independent creator discussing their influence on beauty culture. If public figures could control every commercial or cultural reference to their identity, the legal protection intended to prevent exploitation could become a means of restricting criticism and competition. Celebrity identity is commercially valuable precisely because it circulates through public life; granting individuals too much control over that circulation could undermine the cultural participation that helped establish their fame in the first place.

There is also a question of how far the principle should extend beyond celebrities. If fame creates a stronger claim to commercial control, what happens to people whose reputations are built within smaller communities, or to creators whose names become recognisable within a particular industry? A celebrity may have the resources to register trademarks and enforce their rights, while an independent artist may have created a commercially valuable signature without possessing the same legal infrastructure. The law must recognise genuine investment in identity without making protection dependent solely upon wealth, visibility or the ability to pursue expensive proceedings. Otherwise, the system risks protecting those who are already commercially powerful more effectively than those whose creative contributions are less widely recognised.

That being said, the moment commercial control shifts from protecting your creation to supressing fair competition or controlling shared cultural elements, the moral justification weakens significantly. 

Applying Nietzschien Philosophy

German philosopher, Nietzsche argued that Western morality often glorifies what he referred to as the 'slave morality' in championing weakness, humility and submission. In contrast he advocated the "will to power"; the drive to assert oneself, reject leading values and instead shape your own. Individuals own themselves, and when they mix their labour with the world, they create property. If you do not protect what you create, you weaken the very system that allows individuals to build success. 

Nietzsche's philosophy provides an interesting starting point for examining the relationship between individual ambition and commercial ownership, although his concept of the will to power should not be confused with a straightforward defence of private property. His work explores the human desire to overcome limitations, establish values and exercise agency, making it useful for considering why individuals seek to shape their own identities rather than allow others to define them. From this perspective, building a recognisable brand can be understood as an exercise in self-creation: an individual transforms their abilities, experiences and public image into something that can operate independently within the commercial world.

However, the idea of self-creation becomes more complicated when personal identity is treated as property. A person may create a public persona, but they do not create every cultural association, social relationship or audience expectation that gives that persona meaning. Jenner's commercial identity, for example, emerged through a wider entertainment ecosystem involving television, media coverage, beauty culture and the participation of millions of consumers. This does not invalidate her contribution or her entitlement to protect legitimate commercial interests. It does, however, challenge the assumption that everything associated with a successful identity can be claimed as the exclusive product of individual labour.

A further difficulty arises when the protection of one's own success restricts another person's capacity to create. The freedom to establish a business is meaningful only if other people retain a reasonable freedom to compete, develop their own identities and participate in the same cultural environment. A legal framework that protects established brands without adequately considering these competing interests could allow commercial success to reproduce itself through exclusion. In this sense, protecting property and protecting individual agency are not always identical objectives. The former can support the latter, but excessive control may eventually undermine the very freedom that makes entrepreneurship valuable.

This is where the ethical limits of ownership become most apparent. If a person has a legitimate claim to the value they create, that claim should not automatically extend to every adjacent idea, word or cultural reference that might prove commercially useful. Intellectual property law attempts to manage this tension by granting particular rights over defined forms of expression and commercial identification, rather than treating all forms of influence as property. Its underlying challenge is to encourage creation without allowing the successful to establish permanent control over the conditions of future creativity.

Celebrity Brands in the Age of Litigation

The wider significance of these disputes lies in what they reveal about the changing relationship between identity and ownership. In the influencer economy, individuals are encouraged to turn their appearance, personality and personal histories into monetisable assets. The distinction between private identity and commercial identity becomes increasingly difficult to maintain when every public appearance can generate advertising revenue and every aesthetic choice can contribute to a recognisable brand. Yet a person's identity is not simply a product they manufacture and own in isolation. It is also shaped by social relationships, cultural influences and the interpretations of others. The law can protect certain commercial interests arising from identity, but it cannot neatly resolve every moral question about who deserves recognition for the cultural value they help create.

Kylie Jenner's beauty empire therefore offers a useful case study in the limits of commercial ownership. Her success demonstrates why businesses need mechanisms to protect distinctive branding, original creative work and the reputations they have invested in building. The disputes surrounding her brand also demonstrate why those protections must remain proportionate. A trademark should not become a monopoly over an ordinary name in every context; copyright should not become ownership of an entire aesthetic; and publicity rights should not prevent legitimate cultural discussion. These distinctions are essential to maintaining a marketplace in which success can be rewarded without making future success unnecessarily difficult for everyone else.

The question is not whether celebrities deserve legal protection simply because they are famous, nor whether their commercial power makes their claims inherently illegitimate. It is whether the rights they seek are sufficiently connected to something the law should protect, and whether the scope of those rights remains fair to competing creators and the public. That is a far more demanding question than deciding who has the larger following or the more recognisable name. It requires us to look beyond the spectacle of celebrity litigation and examine the principles that determine who gets to own, profit from and participate in modern culture.

There was a time when celebrity endorsements meant a perfume line and a glossy magazine spread. Now a celebrity doesn’t just endorse a brand - they are the brand. In the influencer economy, identity is capital. A face becomes equity. And when identity becomes monetised at scale, litigation is never far behind.