The Los-Angeles-based company, Pinkette Clothing Inc., has recently sued ALO, a Los-Angeles-based yoga wear brand, alleging Trademark Infringement of is registered mark “LUSH.” Pinkette has claimed that ALO has been merchandising some products with the word “Lush” that runs afoul of the Trademark Rights in its trademark “LUSH” and is causing confusion among the purchasers and customers.

As per the lawsuit filed at a federal court of Los-Angeles earlier this month by Pinkette, the company has been using the word “LUSH” since 2003 in connection with a contemporary, fashion-forward, and high-quality womenswear brand. It was only in March 2019, when they came to know about a company known as ALO using the word Lush with their brand of women’s clothing. Pinkette further asserted that ALO’s intentional and unauthorized use of their trademark is misleading the customers by creating confusion in the marketplace and making people believe that ALO’s Lush branded products have a connection with its LUSH Label. The company stated that it had indeed sent a cease and desist letter to the yoga wear brand in March, demanding it to stop using the word Lush with its products; however, ALO wasn’t willing to discontinue its infringing activities.

Keeping all these factors in mind, Pinkette has asked the federal court to award it with permanent and preliminary injunctions and order ALO to destroy all the branded products and marketing materials with the label LUSH. Although Pinkette has enjoyed Trademark Protection for the word LUSH and used it on its pieces of clothing for quite a while now, the lawsuit filed becomes less of an open-and-shut Trademark Infringement case if one considers the right manner in which ALO is using the word LUSH.

As proof of alleged infringement, Pinkette has pointed to three of ALO’s yoga wear garments including ALOSoft Lush Bra, High-Waist Lush Short, and Lush Bra. However, ALO’s counsel will probably persuasively and almost certainly argue in response to the lawsuit by stating that it is not at all running afoul of the Trademark Law as it has never used the word Lush the way it is used in Pinkette’s registered mark (LUSH). Such an argument will throw light on the fact that trademarks protect only signs, names, symbols, logo, to name a few, and not any descriptions or decorations.

Additionally, ALO has used the word “Lush” on a variety of different types of garments ranging from bras to shorts. Even more than that, the company doesn’t only use the word “Lush” with its products instead, it also uses a variety of other words, including Lotus, Lounge, Off-Duty, and Mode. Therefore, the use of the word “Lush” was never meant to enable customers to associate the products exclusively to the ALO brand.

In this particular case, ALO, undoubtedly, has a relevant point since its use of the word “Lush” neither acts as a trademark, nor it runs afoul of the trademark law.