trademark claim proceeds with essentially no detail, despite trade dress failure

Honest Company, Inc., v. Butterblu, LLC, 2026 WL 2211834, No. 2:26-cv-00019-WLH-MBK (C.D. Cal. Jul. 28, 2026)

Honest sued former partner Butterblu for trademark infringement and related claims. Honest sells products in the diaper and wipes, skin and personal care, and household and wellness categories. It registered two trademarks for HONEST registered for swaddling and crib blankets and various children and infant related products, and also owned HONEST BABY CLOTHING (and logo) for baby and toddler-related products.

The parties previously entered into an agreement (where Honest took over ownership of all products in inventory, and Butterblu sourced, marketed and sold these products in exchange for a service fee. Honest alleged breach for, among other things “secretly developing and selling a baby apparel product line in direct competition with Honest Baby Clothing brand products.” Honest claimed rights in two print designs with stylized holiday trees and a striped, pastel rainbow used on various products that Butterblu allegedly copied.

claimed Honest design

Claimed Honest design

Consumers allegedly commented on online forums, such as Reddit, that Butterblu’s products “look like” Honest products but “rebranded” or similar language, that Butterblu is the “creator” of Honest’s products, and otherwise expressed confusion as to the source of and/or affiliation between the parties’ respective products. Honest alleged that “at least one” consumer has contacted Honest with questions about a recent purchase in which the consumer intended to buy Honest products from Amazon but instead received products bearing a Butterblu label.

Honest pine PJs

Butterblu pine PJs

Honest rainbow PJs

Butterblu rainbow PJs

Butterblu’s website allegedly includes a misleading statement that “Honest’s new leadership team ultimately decided to exit the apparel space.”

Showing a common tolerance for trademark claims, despite Butterblu’s argument that Honest didn’t plead use of its marks, it was enough to allege that Butterblu “has used Honest’s intellectual property without authorization” and “mislead consumers and prospective consumers into believing the Infringing Products are affiliated or associated with, or sponsored by, Honest” and to submits screenshots showing that Butterblu “sold products that bear striking resemblance to its own products.” Products, not marks. Ugh.

And pleading that Reddit users have commented on forums about Honest and Butterblu products looking similar and have expressed confusion “as to the source of and/or the affiliation between the Parties’ respective products” also sufficed.

Plus, “many courts have held that an ex-licensee’s continued use of a trademark is enough to establish likelihood of confusion,” and the court agreed. Ugh again! Which trademark? Especially because the court also says that the trade dress infringement claim failed for want of pleading secondary meaning.

Explain to me how this screenshot shows use of the Honest marks?

Honest alleged that intentional copying showed secondary meaning. But “proof of deliberate copying is not determinative ... competitors may intentionally copy product features for a variety of reasons.” Thus, pleading intentional copying alone is insufficient. The online comments about “looking like” or “rebranding” weren’t enough because they didn’t specifically discuss the two claimed prints, and “looking like” does not equal confusion. Why doesn't this also doom the claim about trademark infringement, since the commenters doesn't seem to depend on the word marks or logo?

False advertising: Butterblu argued that Honest’s own public statements confirm the truth of the alleged false statement that Honest was exiting apparel, and, that the continued availability of remaining products during a sell-through or transition period does not render the “apparel-exit” statement false. But “[w]hether the alleged misrepresentations are false or misleading is a factual question generally inappropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss.” The complaint alleged that “HONEST-branded apparel continues to be advertised, offered for sale, and sold to consumers, contrary to the representations made on Butterblu’s website” and that “Honest has a one-year sell off period for existing inventory.” Honest also argues that Butterblu knew that the statement was misleading because Honest explicitly stated in its earnings release that it was “ ‘exiting our relationship with our current apparel provider’ —i.e., Butterblu” and did not state that it was exiting the apparel space as a whole. This was enough on a motion to dismiss.