Kim Kardashian is, once again, being called out for copying.

The latest accusations involve the 2017 holiday collection for Kid Supply, a children’s line she launched with Kanye West earlier this year. The new range includes pieces like faux fur coats, beanies, sweatshirts, and new miniature Yeezys; however, some of the designs aren’t exactly original. In fact, some say they’re full-on rip-offs of Rei Kawakubo and Demna Gvasalia designs.

Diet Prada pointed this out on Tuesday, sharing an Instagram post that compared the Kid Supply pieces—an embroidered bomber and sequins dress—to the Comme des Garçons and Vetements originals.

“Just when we thought you may have rocked the glitter better than Bey, you had to go and rip an extremely limited edition @commedesgarcons x Kosho & Co souvenir jacket for your @thekidssupplyline AND that one-of-a-kind custom sequin @vetements_official dress made specially for North,” Diet Prada wrote in the caption. “Great message for the little ones!”

 But a spokesperson for Kid Supply insists the pieces weren’t copies. They were an “homage.” The child-size replicas were reportedly made for Kim and Kanye’s children, North and Saint. After the designs received positive feedback on social media, Kid Supply decided to reproduced and sell the pieces as the “Rei bomber” and the “Demna dress.”

“The idea behind Kids Supply is to give people the opportunity to purchase things that would never be available for children otherwise,” a Kid Supply representative told Page Six. “We decided to release the Demna dress after making one on our own for North because it got such a great reaction and an overflow of people wanting it for their own children. We named it the Demna dress to pay homage to him as it was one of Kim and North’s favorite mommy and me moments.”

Kim addressed the accusations via Twitter on Wednesday, claiming all proceeds from both pieces will be go towards the Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles.

But it wasnt so long ago when the house of Kim got caught stealing anothers idea and brand.

Its “Kroma” verses “Khroma.”


Here is a reminder of that scandal surrounding America’s reality train wreck, the Kardashians, and Boldface, a national Licensing and Branding company, which licenses the Kardashian’s names and likenesses to be sold and exploited worldwide. This time the earthquake centers around the Kardashian’s cosmetics line “Khroma.”

The California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals federal judge issued a wide-spanning injunction against the Kardashian’s cosmetics line “Khroma”.

Khroma was awarded emergency relief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as a result of U.S. District Court judge Audrey Collins’ ruled that the Kardashian’s brand “Khroma” infringed the trademark rights on Lee Tillett’s “Kroma” line of cosmetics.


So, are the Beverly Kardashians guilty of copyright infringement and trademark violations? Well, 5,321 stores in 48 states agree with the judge and will soon no longer be selling “Khroma.”

So lets take a step back to the past. Florida based Lee Tillett’s line “Kroma” is an established brand selling with an estimated yearly haul of over $200,000. U.S. District Court judge Audrey Collins stated “This Court has little doubt that, in short order, the Khroma Beauty products will likely eliminate Tillett’s business entirely, creating irreparable harm to justify an injunction.”

So how could this happen, and was it intentional?

Tillett was exploring a more global brand presence for his Kroma” line of cosmetics. To do that he would need celebrity endorsement deals. So in 2010, his representatives held discussions with TLK Fusion, which acted as Kardashian’s product-placement agent for a show Kim was producing, the unforgivable The Spin Room. The discussions went well for a time and then suddenly stopped for no reason. A few months later behold! Boldface has a brilliant new idea for a cosmetics product line they call “Khroma.” Boldface paid the Kardashians an upfront advance of $1 million for licensing rights with guaranteed minimum royalty payments of $4.6 million to $5.2 million.

Boldface error or a Boldface Lie?

Tillett represented by attorneys Elliot Gipson and Gregory Fayer at Fayer Gipson responded with a 10 million dollar counter claim, that in our humble opinion he is going to win.

Judge Collins ruled a motion for a preliminary injunction in Tillett’s favor. Judge Collins ruling “compared the two brands based on similarity, “sound identical” and “appear nearly identical.” Judge Collins also finds that “both parties sell cosmetics, and in fact, some of their products are identical, such as eye shadow, lip gloss lines, foundation and bronze” for example.

Judge Collins writes, “Boldface’s product line are backed by the Kardashians’ nationwide fame, and Boldface’s product line has received extensive nationwide media coverage, shown to millions of viewers on the Kardashian’s reality television show. The line has been promoted on each of the Kardashian sister’s websites and to the national press. “Boldface’s ability to saturate the marketplace creates a potential that consumers will assume that Tillett’s “Kroma” refers to Boldface “Khroma”, and thus perceive that the businesses are somehow associated,'” writes the judge, who was also shown examples of Tillett’s clients experiencing actual confusion.

Boldface tried to convince Judge Collins to the vastness of the cosmetic playing field and there was room enough for all to experience growth but Judge Collins didn’t find the argument warranted consideration via the loss of Tillett’s decade old business.

Now Boldface has other worries, like breach of contract with its retail partners, including Sears ,not to mention all the ad work in every rag on the newsstands and check out lines. We are talking millions of dollars in loss. Boldface will begin hemorrhaging money, as 5,321 stores in 48 states are no longer accepting the “Khroma” products. So what will happen to the sweatshops in third world counties who manufactured the Khroma product lines? I see re-branding coming. Like magic it’s the new Kardashian’s line, ‘Copycat’.

The judge writes that she “is well-aware of the impact an injunction will have on Boldface’s business, which could amount to millions of dollars in losses. But the Court is also fully convinced that withholding an injunction will destroy Tillett’s business, which it has built over a decade, causing losses of hundreds of thousands (and perhaps millions) of dollars in past investment and future revenue.”

Spy Hollywood is not questioning the Kardashian’s product itself or its usability versus value. We are questioning the strategy on branding. Sometimes you get caught when you steal an idea or brand name. Maybe they should call it ‘Karma’? Oh no, that’s already taken by Fisker. So is it a Make Up Or Cover Up? You be the judge.

ideas8Lou Ceffer