Stephen C. McArthur (State Bar No. 277712) THE MCARTHUR ... · makeup designs. 3. Over the past...

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stephen C. McArthur (State Bar No. 277712) [email protected] Valerie McConnell (State Bar No. 274159) [email protected] THE MCARTHUR LAW FIRM PC 400 Corporate Pointe, 3rd Floor Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (323) 639-4455 Attorneys for Plaintiff VLADA HAGGERTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VLADAMUA, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company Plaintiff, vs. LVMH MOËT HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON, S.E., a French corporation; LVMH MOËT HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON, INC.; a New York corporation; MAKE UP FOR EVER, LLC; a New York Limited Liability Company and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

Case: 2:18-cv-128 COMPLAINT FOR

1. Copyright Infringement

2. Federal Trademark Infringement

3. False Designation of Origin 15 U.S.C.

4. Common Law Trademark Infringement

5. California Statutory Unfair Competition

6. California Common Law Unfair Competition

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Vladamua, LLC (“Vladamua” or “Plaintiff”) by and through its

undersigned counsel, states as follows for its complaint against Defendants LVMH

Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, S.E.; LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton, Inc.,

Make Up For Ever, LLC (“Make Up For Ever” or “MUFE”) and Does 1 through

10, inclusive (collectively, the “Defendants”) and alleges as follows:

Case 2:18-cv-00128 Document 1 Filed 01/05/18 of 27 Page ID #:1

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises out of Defendants’ intentional and willful decision to

infringe Ms. Haggerty’s copyrighted “Rose Gold Lip Art” and “Liquid Gold”

photographs, as well as her federal and common law trademark rights in “Rose

Gold Lip Art” for makeup application services.

2. Plaintiff Vladamua, LLC is a California-based Limited Liability

Company that specializes in providing high-quality makeup application services,

photography services, and creating unique works of makeup art. Vladamua’s

founder, Vlada Haggerty, is a Los Angeles-based makeup artist and photographer

whose works of makeup art have been featured in fashion publications and art

galleries all over all the world. Ms. Haggerty is especially well-known for her

works of lip art, which feature close-up photographs of lips decorated with unique

makeup designs.

3. Over the past year, Defendant Make Up For Ever has sent multiple

written requests to Ms. Haggerty to use her distinctive dripping lip art to promote

Make Up For Ever’s cosmetics. (See, e.g., Exhibits 1-2).

4. For example, on September 20, 2016, MUFE asked Ms. Haggerty if she

was open to “a collaboration for 2017.” (Exhibit 1). Ms. Haggerty responded that

she was “under an exclusive lip art contract” with another major brand and that her

“signature lip looks are off limits.” MUFE responded and asked if there was “a

possible work around.” Ms. Haggerty followed up with a phone call and told them

that there was not.

5. After Ms. Haggerty declined MUFE’s requests, MUFE went ahead and

performed its own unauthorized “work around” and adopted a logo for its new line

of “Lustrous” cosmetics directly copied Ms. Haggerty’s most famous trademark

and copyrighted works. The copy is so similar that it gives consumers the false

impression that Ms. Haggerty is collaborating with MUFE when she is not.

6. MUFE’s decision to use a logo for its “Lustrous” brand that is near-


3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

identical to Ms. Haggerty’s copyrighted and trademarked works of lip art was

deliberate and a result of Ms. Haggerty declining to collaborate with it.

7. Moreover, the similarities between MUFE’s new rose gold dripping lips

logo and Ms. Haggerty’s works of lip art are undeniable. As demonstrated by the

photos produced below, MUFE simply combined two of Ms. Haggerty’s most

famous images. The infringing MUFE logo even includes the exact same

placement of drips as Plaintiff’s copyrighted “Liquid Gold.”

Lip Art”

Top Left: Plaintiff’s “Liquid Gold.”

Top Right: Plaintiff’s “Rose Gold Lip Art.”

Bottom: MUFE’s infringing “Lustrous” logo.


4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8. Since MUFE began using the Infringing Logo, many consumers have

expressed actual confusion as to whether Ms. Haggerty is the source of, or

otherwise affiliated with, MUFE’s “Lustrous” cosmetics line. Some representative

examples are shown below (See Exhibit 3):

• User “susanmichelle92” wrote, “Is this a collab with @vladamua? 1 The lip

art looks similar to hers.”

• User “jessajess_” wrote, “@susanmichelle92 she works for makeup

forever.” (Mistakenly believing that, due to MUFE’s infringement, Ms.

Haggerty must work for MUFE).

• User “jackie.a_” wrote, “At first glance I thought it as a collab with

@vladamua.”

• User “rachaelleahx” wrote, “@vladamua was this done with you at all???”

• User “shayxtreme” wrote, “Hmmm wonder if they are gonna get Sued for

copying this Lip Art ...”

• User “nadzhe_gee” wrote, “@shayxtreme i was thinking the same thing . . .

at first i thought the caption was gonna say a makeup forever collab with

@vladamua.”

• User “brxndoncross” wrote, “I definitely thought this had something to do

with @vladamua because of the lip art. I don’t know man…”

• User “h1pp13th0” wrote, “@brxndoncross I did too!! Soon as I saw it I

thought of @vladamua!!”

• User “Natasza Nalewajek” wrote, “I see Vlada’s lips” in response to a

picture of Defendants’ Infringing Logo.

9. MUFE’s deliberate decision to create a logo based on Plaintiff’s

copyrighted and trademarked works of lip art is further demonstrated by the fact

that MUFE’s “Lustrous” logo differs significantly from the logo that Defendants

used on MUFE’s products before they attempted to collaborate with Ms. Haggerty. 1 @vladamua is Ms. Haggerty’s Instagram user name.


5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Historically, MUFE has used a logo consisting of a simple pair of red lips,

reproduced below, which bears little resemblance to MUFE’s new infringing

“Lustrous” logo or to Ms. Haggerty’s copyrighted work.

10. Accordingly, due to MUFE’s blatant and willful infringement, Plaintiff

has no choice but to file this lawsuit seeking damages that it has suffered as a result

of MUFE’s copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair

competition.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. Plaintiff has asserted a claim for copyright infringement under the

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., as well as claims for federal trademark

infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§

1114, 1125(a). This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, and 1338(a).

12. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent state

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 in that the state law claims are integrally

interrelated with the federal claims and arise from a common nucleus of operative

facts, such that the administration Plaintiff’s state law claims with the federal

claims furthers the interest of judicial economy.

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they do

substantial business and sales in this District. Defendants have purposefully availed

themselves and directed their business at opportunities in this District. Moreover,

Defendants have committed tortious acts in this District against Plaintiff, whose

principal place of business is in this District.

14. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a) and (b)

because a substantial part of the events that are the subject matter of this lawsuit


6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

occurred in this judicial district and Defendants are subject to the Court’s personal

jurisdiction and therefore reside in this District.

III. PARTIES

15. Plaintiff Vladamua, LLC is a California-based Limited Liability

Company with a business address of 5358 Hermitage Avenue, North Hollywood,

California 91607.

16. Upon information and belief, Defendant Make Up For Ever is a New

York limited liability company with a business address of 409 West Broadway,

New York, New York 10012. Defendant Make Up For Ever operates as a division

of Defendant LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, S.E.

17. Upon information and belief, Defendant LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis

Vuitton, S.E. is an international holding company and French société anonyme

with a business address of 22 Avenue Montaigne, Paris, 75008, France. Defendant

LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, S.E. owns, in whole or in part, more than

sixty brands, including Make Up For Ever.

18. Upon information and belief, Defendant LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis

Vuitton, Inc. is a New York corporation with a business address of 19 East 57th

Street, New York, New York 10022. LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, Inc.

operates as a subsidiary of Defendant LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, S.E.

19. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names of the other Defendants sued herein

as Does 1-10 and, therefore, sue these Doe Defendants by such fictitious names.

Additional Doe Defendants are likely to include, among others, additional

managers, officers, members, and other individuals who have authorized,

condoned, directed, and participated in the decisions(s) to have Defendants Make

Up For Ever, LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, S.E., and LVMH Moët

Hennessy Louis Vuitton, Inc. infringe Plaintiff’s copyright and trademark rights.

Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege additional Doe Defendants’ true


7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

names and capacities when ascertained.

IV. Facts Common to All Claims

Plaintiff’s Creation, Publication and Use of “Liquid Gold” and

“Rose Gold Lip Art”

20. Plaintiff Vladamua provides high-quality makeup application services,

and unique works of makeup art. Plaintiff was founded by Vlada Haggerty, a Los

Angeles-based makeup artist and photographer who has gained worldwide acclaim

for her lip art and photography.

21. Plaintiff’s works of makeup art are displayed on its website, located at

https://www.vladamua.com/, as well as on Instagram at

https://www.instagram.com/vladamua/, where Plaintiff has nearly 800,000 devoted

followers. Plaintiff’s work has also been featured by such clients as Disney Style,

Pat McGrath Labs, Cover Girl, Smashbox Cosmetics, NYX Cosmetics,

Cosmopolitan, Elle, Vogue, Tarte Cosmetics, Black Moon Cosmetics, Jeffree Starr

Cosmetics, and Tattoo Junkie Cosmetics.

22. In May 2015, Ms. Haggerty created two distinctive “dripping lip”

makeup looks. First, she created “Liquid Gold,” reproduced below, and published

a photograph of that work to her Instagram account on May 5, 2015. “Liquid

Gold” is protected by federal copyright, application number 1-6076941067.

23. Next, Ms. Haggerty created her iconic “Rose Gold Lip Art,” which she

published on her Instagram account on May 12, 2015. “Rose Gold Lip Art” is

protected by copyright registration number VA0002037039.


8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24. “Liquid Gold” and “Rose Gold Lip Art” quickly became popular on

Instagram and throughout the beauty and fashion industry. Since May 2015,

numerous publications have featured stories on these unique works of lip art and

how Ms. Haggerty created a new “drenched” or “dripping” lip look. Examples

include:

• On March 10, 2016, Refinery29 published an article entitled, “Meet

Instagram’s Most Controversial New Makeup Artist,” which credited Ms.

Haggerty with starting a “new lip trend” consisting of a “dripping,

drenched effect,” and described her works of lip art as conveying a

“pillowy, provocative style.”

• On March 9, 2017, Teen Vogue published an article entitled, “Makeup

Artist Vlada Haggerty Launches Lip Line with Smashbox Cosmetics,”

which discussed Ms. Haggerty’s “infamous rose-gold drip lip” and how

her “inventive lip looks have become hugely popular on Instagram.”

• On March 9, 2017, Bustle published an article entitled, “Who Is Vlada

Haggerty? Smashbox’s Lip Editor In Chief Is No Newbie To The Makeup

World,” which stated that Ms. Haggerty is famous for her “lip drips” and

“takes the term ‘makeup artist’ to a whole new level. Not only does she

apply the makeup, but she, quite literally, turns it into art as well. One

look at her professional website and you'll see just how talented she is.”

• On April 12, 2017, Harper’s Bazaar published an article entitled,


9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“Smashbox Collaborates with the Queen of Lip Art,” which explains how

Ms. Haggerty has become famous for her “dramatic” lip art, including her

“Rose Gold Lip Art.”

• On May 17, 2017, Los Angeles Times published an article entitled, “Meet

Makeup Artist Vlada Haggerty, Smashbox Cosmetics’ New ‘Lip Editor in

Chief,’” which described Ms. Haggerty’s lip art as “whimsical and eye-

catching” and explained that “Haggerty has mastered conveying the

texture of the lip products she uses primarily through a self-taught

technique she calls ‘the drip.’ Scroll her Instagram and it’s hard to miss

the images of gloss hanging from a bottom lip in mid-drip. It’s another

signature for the makeup artist…”

25. Ms. Haggerty also began using the “Rose Gold Lip Art” image as a

trademark for her makeup services at least as early as May 2015. Ms. Haggerty’s

“Rose Gold Lip Art” is registered as U.S. federal trademark number 5,296,027.

26. Since May 2015, Ms. Haggerty has invested tremendous time and

resources into marketing and promoting her makeup application services under her

“Rose Gold Lip Art” logo. Cosmetics products are in the natural zone of expansion

for makeup services like Ms. Haggerty’s.

27. Ms. Haggerty has assigned her copyright in the “Rose Gold Lip Art” to

“Liquid Gold” to Plaintiff Vladamua, as well as her trademark rights in “Rose

Gold Lip Art.”


10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28. All advertising and marketing materials for Plaintiff’s makeup

application services prominently feature the “Rose Gold Lip” trademark.

Representative examples include Plaintiff’s website, www.vladahaggerty.com, its

Instagram page, www.instagram.com/vladamua, and the signature block of Ms.

Haggerty’s emails, reproduced below:

(From www.vladahaggerty.com)

(From www.instagram.com/vladamua)

(From Vlada Haggerty’s email signature block)


http://www.vladahaggerty.com/

http://www.instagram.com/vladamua

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29. Plaintiff’s “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark is inherently distinctive and

has developed widespread brand recognition among consumers in California and

across the country as the source of high-quality makeup application services.

30. As a result of Plaintiff’s extensive advertising and promotion of its

makeup application services under the “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark, this

trademark is extremely strong, distinctive, and has acquired extensive and valuable

goodwill with consumers as an identifier of superior quality makeup application

services.

31. Plaintiff’s federal registration of “Rose Gold Lip Art” mark for makeup

application services is prima facie evidence that this trademark is valid, and that

Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive use of this mark in commerce throughout the

United States for makeup application and related goods and services.

32. Plaintiff also has extensive common law rights in “Rose Gold Lip Art”

trademark due to Ms. Haggerty’s continuous use of this mark in commerce in

interstate commerce since at least as early as May 2015.

Defendants’ Requests to Use Plaintiff’s Lip Art

33. By way of Plaintiff’s public display of “Liquid Gold” and “Rose Gold

Lip Art” on her website, Instagram and other significant media exposure,

Defendants had access to Plaintiff’s copyrighted “Liquid Gold” and “Rose Gold

Lip Art” photos and were aware of her authorship and ownership in these photos.

34. Defendants were also well aware that Plaintiff used the single photo from

“Rose Gold Lip Art” as a trademark for makeup application services. Defendants

had this knowledge from Plaintiff’s extensive promotion of its makeup application

services under this mark, as well as from Defendants’ prior dealings with Plaintiff.

As described below, Defendants have expressed admiration for Ms. Haggerty’s lip

art and have repeatedly asked her to use her distinctive lip art to promote

Defendants’ cosmetics.

35. On September 20, 2016, Nancy Lan from Defendant Make Up For Ever’s


12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Brand Marketing team emailed Ms. Haggerty, asking if she was “open to the

possibility of a collaboration for 2017.” In that email, Ms. Lan also told Ms.

Haggerty, “I am huge fan - your creations are so inspiring and beautiful! I’ve been

following your Instagram for quite some time now and your passion for artistry

and lips really comes through your work. Your aesthetic and attention to detail is

incredible.” Ms. Lan’s email correspondence with Ms. Haggerty is attached as

Exhibit 1.

36. Ms. Haggerty emailed Ms. Lan a response on September 20, 2016, in

which Ms. Haggerty declined to collaborate with Defendants on her signature

dripping-lips look since Ms. Haggerty was already under an exclusive contract

with Smashbox Cosmetics. Ms. Haggerty’s email to Ms. Lan contained Plaintiff’s

“Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark in the signature block. (See Exhibit 1). Therefore,

as demonstrated by the foregoing correspondence, Defendants were aware of and

desired Plaintiff’s protected intellectual property since at least September 20, 2016.

37. Ms. Lan followed up with a phone call to Ms. Haggerty on September 28,

2016 to further discuss the possibility of using Plaintiff’s lip art to promote

Defendants’ cosmetics, but Ms. Haggerty once again declined this opportunity.

38. A few months later, on January 5, 2017, Ms. Haggerty was contacted by

the Internet media company Buzzfeed and asked whether she could create lip art

for a series of videos promoting Defendants’ cosmetics. The Buzzfeed

representative stated that Defendant Make Up For Ever requested Ms. Haggerty

collaboration because she is “the lip pro.” Ms. Haggerty declined this request. The

email correspondence between Buzzfeed and Ms. Haggerty is attached as Exhibit

2.

Defendants’ Infringement of Plaintiff’s Copyright in “Liquid Gold” and

“Rose Gold Lip Art”

39. After Ms. Haggerty repeatedly declined Defendants’ requests for

Plaintiff’s iconic lip art, Defendants decided to use an image that is substantially


13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

similar to Plaintiff’s “Liquid Gold” and “Rose Gold Lip Art” to promote their

cosmetics.

40. On or about September 19, 2017, Defendants launched their “Lustrous”

makeup brand which sells lipstick, lip gloss, brushes and related cosmetic

products. Defendants’ “Lustrous” makeup products include “Lustrous Artist

Rouge Set,” “Lustrous Faves,” “Lustrous Brush Set,” and “Lustrous Shadow

Palette.”

41. Defendants’ “Lustrous” makeup products are sold in packages that

feature an image of rose gold lips (hereinafter “the Infringing Logo”). Examples of

packaging for Defendants’ “Lustrous” makeup products are reproduced below:

Source: www.makeupforever.com


14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42. Defendants’ Infringing Logo mimics the “dripping” or “drenched” lip

look, which is distinctive of Plaintiff’s “Liquid Gold” and Rose Gold Lip Art.” As

demonstrated by the following side-by-side comparison, Defendants’ Infringing

Logo is substantially similar to Plaintiff’s “Liquid Gold” and “Rose Gold Lip Art:”

Top Left: “Liquid Gold.” Top Right: “Rose Gold Lip Art”

Bottom: Infringing Logo 43. Defendants’ Infringing Logo replicates the overall look and feel of both

“Liquid Gold” and “Rose Gold Lip” Art. Like Plaintiff’s copyrighted works,

Defendants’ Infringing Logo consists of a pair of parted lips that are “drenched” or

“dripping” in metallic lip gloss. The Infringing Logo also borrows distinctive

elements from both “Liquid Gold” and “Rose Gold Lip Art.” The Infringing Logo

has the same rose gold hue as “Rose Gold Lip Art” and identically mimics the

placement of “drips” of lip gloss that are seen on the bottom lip of “Liquid Gold.”


15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

44. In addition, the Infringing Logo features the same highlights and

distinctive texture of “Liquid Gold.” It appears that Defendants took the “Liquid

Gold” photo and used it as a model to create the Infringing Logo, as demonstrated

by the following side-by-side comparison. The red circles in the comparison

below show examples of how the Infringing Logo and Liquid Gold share identical

textures and highlighting, indicating that the Infringing Logo is actually an edited

copy of the Liquid Gold photograph:

Left: “Liquid Gold.” Right: Infringing Logo

45. Since at least September 2017, Defendants have widely distributed, used,

and displayed the Infringing Logo to untold millions of people by using the

Infringing Logo on their “Lustrous” cosmetics products, on their websites and

social media sites, including https://www.makeupforever.com/us/en-us/, and on the

websites of their distributors, including https://www.sephora.com/product/lustrous-

faves-P423704.

46. None of the Defendants have a license to use, display, duplicate, or create

derivative works of “Liquid Gold” or “Rose Gold Lip Art.” Nonetheless,

Defendants continue to use, display, and distribute the Infringing Logo, despite

knowledge of Plaintiff’s copyright ownership in “Liquid Gold” and “Rose Gold


16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Lip Art.”

Defendants’ Infringement of Plaintiff’s Trademark Rights in “Rose Gold

Lip Art”

47. Defendants’ “Lustrous” makeup products appeal to the same consumers

as Plaintiff’s high-quality makeup application services. Plaintiff relies on the same

marketing channels, including the same beauty and fashion publications, bloggers,

and social media influencers, to promote its high-quality makeup application

services that Defendants use to promote their “Lustrous” makeup products. In

particular, both Plaintiff and Defendant Make Up For Ever rely heavily on

Instagram to advertise and promote their makeup businesses. Defendant Make Up

For Ever promotes its cosmetics products by posting photos of different makeup

looks everyday under the Instagram name “makeupforeverofficial” to its four

million followers.

48. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Logo has caused actual consumer

confusion. This consumer confusion has been intensified by the fact that

Defendants’ Infringing Logo differs significantly from the logo that Defendants

have historically use on their cosmetics. As demonstrated below, the logo on

Make Up For Ever’s products usually consists of a pair of bright red lips, which are

not “dripping” like Plaintiff’s “Rose Gold Lip Art,” or the Infringing Logo:

Source: https://www.makeupforever.com/us/en-us

49. Defendant Make Up For Ever consistently used the logo, above, on its

cosmetics during the period of September 2016 through January 2017 when it

repeatedly asked Ms. Haggerty to create lip art for its products. Only after Ms.

Haggerty rejected Defendants’ requests for her lip art did Defendants deviate from

this logo and adopt the Infringing Logo as an attempt to “work around” Ms.


17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Haggerty’s contractual obligations.

50. Since Defendants began using the Infringing Logo, many consumers

have expressed actual confused as to whether Plaintiff is the source of, or

otherwise affiliated with, Defendants’ “Lustrous” cosmetics. For example, in

response to an Instagram post by user “trendmood1” promoting Defendants’

“Lustrous” Shadow Palette, the following consumers remarked on the striking

similarities between Defendants’ Infringing Logo and Plaintiff’s trademark and

expressed confusion regarding Plaintiff’s contribution to this product (attached

hereto as Exhibit 3; all typos and errors left in their original format):

• User “susanmichelle92” wrote, “Is this a collab with @vladamua? 2 The lip

art looks similar to hers.”

• User “jessajess_” wrote, “@susanmichelle92 she works for makeup

forever.” (Mistakenly believing that Plaintiff works for Make Up For Ever).

• User “jackie.a_” wrote, “At first glance I thought it as a collab with

@vladamua.”

• User “rachaelleahx” wrote, “@vladamua was this done with you at all???”

• User “shayxtreme” wrote, “Hmmm wonder if they are gonna get Sued for

copying this Lip Art ...”

• User “nadzhe_gee” wrote, “@shayxtreme i was thinking the same thing . . .

at first i thought the caption was gonna say a makeup forever collab with

@vladamua.”

• User “brxndoncross” wrote, “I definitely thought this had something to do

with @vladamua because of the lip art. I don’t know man…”

• User “h1pp13th0” wrote, “@brxndoncross I did too!! Soon as I saw it I

thought of @vladamua!!”

51. Likewise, when “trendMood1” published a post promoting Defendants’

“Lustrous” Shadow Palette on Facebook, a user commented, “I see Vlada’s lips” in 2 @vladamua is Plaintiff’s Instagram user name.


18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

response to a picture of Defendants’ Infringing Logo. (See Exhibit 3).

52. In addition, Ms. Haggerty has received messages from customers and

social media followers, asking whether Plaintiff is the source of, or contributed to,

Defendants’ “Lustrous” brand of cosmetics. For example, one unaffiliated third-

party sent Ms. Haggerty a message, inquiring whether Plaintiff was “collabing on a

palette” with Make Up For Ever. The third-party expressed further confusion over

the fact that the lips in Make Up For Ever’s logo are normally red but the ones on

their “Lustrous” cosmetics are “rose gold.” (See Exhibit 4, attached hereto.)

53. Another unaffiliated third party asked whether Plaintiff had “team[ed]

up” with Defendants on their Lustrous collection. The third party explained that

the packaging on Defendants’ Lustrous makeup products “reminded me so much

of your [Plaintiff’s] metallic lip” that she assumed that Plaintiff had “done a

collab” with Defendants. (See Exhibit 5, attached hereto.)

54. Defendants are continuing to use the Infringing Logo to sell and promote

their “Lustrous” brand cosmetics products, despite knowledge of Plaintiff’s use of

the “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark.

55. Defendants must now answer for their infringing conduct, which will

include an injunction barring all future use of the Infringing Logo, Plaintiff’s actual

damages for the copyright and trademark infringement, disgorgement of

Defendants’ profits from selling their “Lustrous” makeup products under the

Infringing Logo, and enhanced damages for the Defendants’ willful infringement.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Federal Copyright Infringement of “Rose Gold Lip Art”)

56. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation above as if fully

set forth herein.

57. This Count arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, Title 17 United

States Code §101 et seq.

58. “Rose Gold Lip Art” is a wholly original, creative work that constitutes


19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

Plaintiff owns the exclusive rights and privileges in and to “Rose Gold Lip Art,”

which is protected by federal copyright registration number VA0002037039.

59. By distribution, display and use of their Infringing Logo, Defendants

intentionally copied, displayed, and used “Rose Gold Lip Art” and created

substantially similar derivate works of “Rose Gold Lip Art.” Defendants had

access to “Rose Gold Lip Art” by virtue of its distribution online on Instagram and

on Plaintiff’s website, as well as through other social media sites and publications

that have displayed “Rose Gold Lip Art” with Plaintiff’s permission.

60. Defendants have widely distributed, used, and displayed the Infringing

Logo to untold millions of people by using the Infringing Logo on their “Lustrous”

cosmetics products, on their websites and social media sites, including

https://www.makeupforever.com/us/en-us/, and on the websites of their

distributors.

61. By their actions alleged above, Defendants have infringed Plaintiff’s

copyright in “Rose Gold Lip Art” by, inter alia, copying “Rose Gold Lip Art,”

creating substantially similar derivate works of “Rose Gold Lip Art,” and publicly

displaying and distributing the Infringing Logo without any authorization or other

permission from Plaintiff. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s exclusive rights

under 17 U.S.C. § 106.

62. Defendants are aware of Plaintiff’s copyright in “Rose Gold Lip Art” and

their copyright infringement has been deliberate and with willful disregard to

Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.

63. Defendants have realized unjust profits, unjust enrichment, gains and

advantages as a proximate result of their infringement in an amount not yet to be

determined.

64. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ willful copyright

infringement, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages. Plaintiff is entitled to actual


20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

damages as well as any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by the Defendants

as a result of its acts of infringement and their use and publication of the copied

materials, 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Alternatively, Plaintiff is entitled to the maximum

statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(c) for Defendants’ infringement.

65. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorneys’ fees and full costs of suit pursuant to

17 U.S.C. § 505.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Federal Copyright Infringement of “Liquid Gold”)


set forth herein.

67. This Count arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, Title 17 United

States Code §101 et seq.

68. “Liquid Gold” is a wholly original, creative work that constitutes

copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

Plaintiff owns the exclusive rights and privileges in and to “Liquid Gold,” which is

protected by federal copyright, application number 1-6076941067.

69. By distribution, display and use of their Infringing Logo, Defendants

intentionally copied, displayed, and used “Liquid Gold” and created substantially

similar derivate works of “Liquid Gold.” Defendants had access to “Liquid Gold”

by virtue of its distribution online on Instagram and on Plaintiff’s website, as well

as through other social media sites and publications that have displayed “Liquid

Gold” with Plaintiff’s permission.

70. Defendants have widely distributed, used, and displayed the Infringing

Logo to untold millions of people by using the Infringing Logo on their “Lustrous”

cosmetics products, on their websites and social media sites, including

https://www.makeupforever.com/us/en-us/, and on the websites of their

distributors, including https://www.sephora.com/product/lustrous-faves-P423704.

71. By their actions alleged above, Defendants have infringed Plaintiff’s


21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

copyright in “Liquid Gold” by, inter alia, copying “Liquid Gold,” creating

substantially similar derivate works of “Liquid Gold,” and publicly displaying and

distributing the Infringing Logo without any authorization or other permission

from Plaintiff. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under 17

U.S.C. § 106.

72. Defendants are aware of Plaintiff’s copyright in “Liquid Gold” and their

copyright infringement has been deliberate and with willful disregard to Plaintiff’s

intellectual property rights.

73. Defendants have realized unjust profits, unjust enrichment, gains and

advantages as a proximate result of their infringement in an amount not yet to be

determined.

74. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ willful copyright

infringement, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages. Plaintiff is entitled to actual

damages as well as any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by the Defendants

as a result of its acts of infringement and their use and publication of the copied

materials, 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Alternatively, Plaintiff is entitled to the maximum

statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(c) for Defendants’ infringement.

75. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorneys’ fees and full costs of suit pursuant to

17 U.S.C. § 505.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Federal Trademark Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114)


set forth herein.

77. Plaintiff is the sole owner of the “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark, which

is registered to Plaintiff under registration number 5,296,027 on the Principal

Register at the USPTO. This registration constitutes prima facie evidence that the

“Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark is valid; that it is owned by Plaintiff; and that

Plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark in


22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

commerce in connection with the goods and services specified in the “Rose Gold

Lip Art” Registration.

78. Furthermore, Plaintiff has continuously used the “Rose Gold Lip Art”

trademark in commerce at least as early as May 2015. Meanwhile, Defendants

used the Infringing Logo in commerce after the Plaintiff began using “Rose Gold

Lip Art” trademark. Therefore, Plaintiff clearly has priority of use of the “Rose

Gold Lip Art” trademark as against the Defendants. As such, for at least this

additional reason, Plaintiff is the owner of the “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark and

has the exclusive right to use this mark in commerce.

79. Defendants’ infringement of the “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark, in the

manner set forth above, supra, trades on the “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark and

the goodwill associated therewith, and is likely to confuse and deceive the

consuming public into believing that the Defendants are associated with “Rose

Gold Lip Art” trademark and/or Plaintiff.

80. The actions of the Defendants complained of herein are likely to cause

confusion, to cause mistake or to deceive others into erroneously believing that the

Defendants’ goods are authorized by, licensed by, sponsored by, endorsed by, or

otherwise associated with “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark and/or Plaintiff. The

likelihood of confusion is particularly strong because, inter alia, (i) the “Rose Gold

Lip Art” trademark is strong due to Plaintiff’s extensive use of this mark as early

as May 2015 and therefore carries a high degree of consumer recognition; (ii)

Plaintiff’s “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark and Defendants’ Infringing Logo are

highly similar; and (iii) Defendants’ use of the Infringing Logo on makeup

products is highly related to Plaintiff’s use of the “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark

for makeup application services; (iv) Plaintiff and Defendants use the same

marketing channels; and (v) on information and belief, concurrent use of the marks

by the Defendants and Plaintiff has already resulted in actual confusion among

consumers.


23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

81. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the acts and

conduct of the Defendants complained of herein constitute willful and deliberate

infringement of Plaintiff’s “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark in violation of Section

32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114.

82. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged and is being

damaged by the Defendants’ willful infringement of her “Rose Gold Lip Art”

trademark. Therefore, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), Plaintiff is entitled to

recover at least (i) the Defendants’ profits gained from their infringement; (ii)

Plaintiff’s damages suffered due to the Defendants’ infringement; and (iii)

Plaintiff’s costs in this action.

83. Moreover, Plaintiff has been and will continue to be, irreparably injured

by the continued infringing acts of the Defendants, until and unless such acts are

enjoined. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Therefore, in addition to the

foregoing, the Defendants should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from

their infringing acts under 15 U.S.C. § 1116.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(False Designation of Origin Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))


set forth herein.

85. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Logo has resulted in and continues to

result in confusion, mistake and deception among consumers as to the source of

origin of Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s products and services.

86. Defendants were at least as early as September 2016 of Plaintiff’s prior

rights to the “Rose Gold Lip Art” trademark.

87. By having actual and constructive knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights and

trademarks and continuing to use the Infringing Logo, Defendants have, without

Plaintiff’s consent, willfully violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).


24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

88. Defendants have done and are currently doing so with the intent to

unfairly compete against Plaintiff, to trade upon Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill

by causing confusion and mistake among consumers and the public, and to deceive

the public into believing that Defendants’ products are associated with, sponsored

by, or approved by Plaintiff, when they are not.

89. Defendants’ aforementioned acts and statements have caused damages to

Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.

90. Plaintiff is also being irreparably injured. Such irreparable injury will

continue unless Defendants are permanently enjoined by this Court from further

violation of Plaintiff’s rights, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(California Statutory Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)


set forth herein.

92. By virtue of the acts complained of herein, Defendants have intentionally

caused a likelihood of confusion among consumers and the public and has unfairly

competed with Plaintiff in violation of Cal. Bus. &Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

93. Defendants’ acts constitute unlawful, unfair, malicious or fraudulent

business practices, which have injured and damaged Plaintiff.

94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff will suffer

great harm in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff has also been

irreparably injured and will continue to be irreparably damaged unless Defendants

are enjoined from further committing unfair and unlawful business practices

against Plaintiff.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Common Law Trademark Infringement)

95. Plaintiff repeats and re-allege each and every allegation above as if fully


25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

set forth herein.

96. Defendants have caused a likelihood of confusion among the purchasing

public in this District and elsewhere, thereby infringing Plaintiff’s trademark

rights, in violation of the common law of the State of California and the United

States.

97. Plaintiff is being irreparably injured. Such irreparable injury will


violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(California Common Law Unfair Competition)


set forth herein.

99. Defendants have caused a likelihood of confusion among the purchasing

public in this District and elsewhere, thereby infringing Plaintiff’s trademark

rights, in violation of the common law of the State of California.

100. Plaintiff is being irreparably injured. Such irreparable injury will


violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against

Defendants for the following relief:

a. Permanent injunctive relief against Defendants from using Plaintiff’s “Rose

Gold Lip Art” trademark and selling any products under the Infringing


26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Logo, or any other any marks likely to cause confusion with Plaintiff’s

trademark;

b. An accounting of, and disgorgement of, any and all profits derived by the

Defendants and all damages sustained by Plaintiff, trebled, by virtue of the

Defendants’ infringing and illegal acts, in an amount to be determined at

trial;

c. Prejudgment interest, the full costs of this action, witness fees, and the

Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 505, 1117, 1118, and

California Civil Code § 3288;

d. Punitive, enhanced, and exemplary damages for the Defendants’ acts of

unfair competition and willful infringement;

e. For any and all actual damages sustained by Plaintiff, trebled for willful

infringement, in an amount to be determined at trial;

f. An award of statutory damages based on Defendants’ copyright

infringement, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504;

g. For all of the Defendants’ profits and unjust enrichment derived from their

infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights;

h. A judgment that the Defendants have unfairly competed with Plaintiff and

violated the trademark laws of California and the United States;

i. The destruction of all materials bearing Defendants’ Infringing Logo;

j. For an order that the Defendants be held jointly and severally liable;

k. Other economic and consequential damages in an amount to be determined

at trial;

l. For any other relief as the Court deems proper.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Stephen McArthur


27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stephen Charles McArthur Valerie McConnell The McArthur Law Firm, PC Attorneys for Plaintiff, Vlada Haggerty 400 Corporate Pointe, 3rd Floor Culver City, CA 90230 (323) 639-4455

Dated: January 5, 2018

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure as to all issues in this lawsuit.

By: /s/ Stephen McArthur Stephen Charles McArthur Valerie McConnell The McArthur Law Firm, PC Attorneys for Plaintiff, Vlada Haggerty 400 Corporate Pointe, 3rd Floor Culver City, CA 90230 (323) 639-4455

Dated: January 5, 2018


EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:18-cv-00128 Document 1-1 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:28

10/18/2017 Gmail - MAKE UP FOR EVER

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=9c733ad393&jsver=khUFNOKniXg.en.&view=pt&q=%22make%20up%20for%20ever%22&qs=true&search=… 1/9

Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]>

MAKE UP FOR EVER 8 messages

Nancy Lan <[email protected]> Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:44 AMTo: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>Cc: Nancy Lan <[email protected]>

Hi Vlada,

My name is Nancy Lan from the Brand Marketing team here at MAKE UP FOR EVER. I got your contact from our PRteam and I know you are a fan of MAKE UP FOR EVER & often use our products, thank you! I am huge fan - yourcreations are so inspiring and beautiful! I’ve been following your Instagram for quite some time now and your passion forartistry and lips really comes through your work. Your aesthetic and attention to detail is incredible. J

The reason why I am reaching out is because I wanted to see if you are open to the possibility of a collaboration for 2017. Do you have time for a phone call this week? Please let me know your avability for the next few days and I will be happy toshare more information when we chat.

Best, Nancy

Nancy Lan

Senior Manager, Brand Marketing

841 Broadway 4th Floor, New York, NY 10003

Phone: Mobile:

Follow us on Instagram: @makeupforeverus

www.makeupforever.com

image001.png 16K


http://www.makeupforever.com/



Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]> Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 6:02 PMTo: Nancy Lan <[email protected]>

Hi, Nancy!

Thank you so much for reaching out! I'm truly honored that such an amazing and inspiring brand is interested in workingwith me.

I would be happy to explore the options but I must tell you right away that I am under an exclusive lip art contract with oneof the large makeup brands until December 2017.

I am allowed to do full face looks and eye looks, but my signature lip looks are off limits, unfortunately.

If you still would like to have a call, I am more than happy to chat with you! I will be back to the US on Friday.

Sincerely, Vlada Haggerty Makeup&Hair

www.vladahaggerty.com www.vladamua.com

[Quoted text hidden]

image001.png 16K


https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=9c733ad393&view=att&th=15748ea1e3cf979f&attid=0.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw


https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=9c733ad393&view=att&th=1574a4401b07e330&attid=0.1.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw



Nancy Lan <[email protected]> Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:32 PMTo: Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]>

Hi Vlada!

Bummer (for us) to hear about your contract but congrats to you! I would still love to connect and to better understand therestrictions and see if there is a possible work around. What time works for you tomorrow or Monday? I am available 4:00EST (or 1:00 PST) tomorrow. I am open on Monday during the day.

Best,

Nancy

From: Vlada Haggerty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 9:03 PM To: Nancy Lan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: MAKE UP FOR EVER

Hi, Nancy!

Thank you so much for reaching out! I'm truly honored that such an amazing and inspiring brand is interested in working withme.

I would be happy to explore the options but I must tell you right away that I am under an exclusive lip art contract with one ofthe large makeup brands until December 2017.






mailto:[email protected]





On September 20, 2016 11:44:45 Nancy Lan <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Vlada,


The reason why I am reaching out is because I wanted to see if you are open to the possibility of a collaboration for 2017. Do you have time for a phone call this week? Please let me know your avability for the next few days and I will be happyto share more information when we chat.

Best, Nancy

Nancy Lan



Phone: Mobile:



Nancy Lan <[email protected]> Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:03 PMTo: Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]>

Hi Vlada,

Hope you had a nice weekend, please let me know what time this week work for you for a call.

Best, Nancy






From: Nancy Lan Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 4:32 PM To: 'Vlada Haggerty' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: MAKE UP FOR EVER

Hi Vlada!

Bummer (for us) to hear about your contract but congrats to you! I would still love to connect and to better understand therestrictions and see if there is a possible work around. What time works for you tomorrow or Monday? I am available 4:00EST (or 1:00 PST) tomorrow. I am open on Monday during the day.

Best,

Nancy

From: Vlada Haggerty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 9:03 PM To: Nancy Lan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: MAKE UP FOR EVER

Hi, Nancy!

Thank you so much for reaching out! I'm truly honored that such an amazing and inspiring brand is interested in working withme.

I would be happy to explore the options but I must tell you right away that I am under an exclusive lip art contract with one ofthe large makeup brands until December 2017.











On September 20, 2016 11:44:45 Nancy Lan <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Vlada,


The reason why I am reaching out is because I wanted to see if you are open to the possibility of a collaboration for 2017. Do you have time for a phone call this week? Please let me know your avability for the next few days and I will be happyto share more information when we chat.

Best, Nancy

Nancy Lan



Phone: Mobile:









Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]> Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:40 PMTo: Nancy Lan <[email protected]>

Hi, Nancy!

Thank you! I hope you had a great week end too! I am free tomorrow after 2 pm, Wednesday before 6 pm and Thursday and Friday are open for now. Please let me knowwhich time works best for you!




Nancy Lan <[email protected]> Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:02 AMTo: Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]>

Hi Vlada,

Let’s try for Wednesday – does 11:00 AM PST (2:00 EST) work for you? Is this the best number to call? ?

My number is (office) and (cell).

Best, Nancy





From: Vlada Haggerty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 7:41 PM To: Nancy Lan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: MAKE UP FOR EVER

Hi, Nancy!

Thank you! I hope you had a great week end too! I am free tomorrow after 2 pm, Wednesday before 6 pm and Thursday and Friday are open for now. Please let me knowwhich time works best for you!




Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]> Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:58 AMTo: Nancy Lan <[email protected]>

Hi, Nancy!

Yes, 11 am on Wednesday works for me! Putting it in my calendar. The number is correct. Talk soon!




Nancy Lan <[email protected]> Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:56 PM








To: Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]>

Perfect, talk soon!

From: Vlada Haggerty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:58 PM





EXHIBIT 2


10/18/2017 Gmail - Make Up For Ever + BuzzFeed Opportunity


Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]>

Make Up For Ever + BuzzFeed Opportunity 5 messages

Allex Tarr <[email protected]> Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:33 PMTo: [email protected]

Hi Vlada!

I was contacting you to see if you would be interested in working with BuzzFeed and Make Up For Ever at the end of themonth?

We will be creating three Top Knot videos, which I believe you have worked on before with Jazzmyne, Lindsay, and Iiana,but this time the videos are going to be sponsored by Make Up For Ever.

We will be featuring two of their products: Artist Acrylip, which launched around Christmas and is a high-pigmented lipgloss, and Artist Liquid Matte, which will be launching in February.

I would be directing the shoot along with my DP, Liz, but we would love to bring you on as a lip expert and a makeup artistto work with the Make Up For Ever products on some models we will be bringing in. We pay our makeup artists $350 perday, and we would need you for four days:

Monday, January 23: PrepTuesday, January 24: ShootingWednesday, January 25: ShootingThursday, January 26: Shooting

Some employees from Make Up For Ever will be on set with us those days - the brand manager, one of their own makeupartists, and a couple others. The MUFE makeup artist will be on set to keep an eye on the monitor and make sure themakeup is looking good on camera, but it will be a collaborative effort with you - since you are the lip pro!

Please LMK if you are interested.

Feel free to call me at .

Thanks so much!

--

Allex Tarr | BuzzFeed | Branded Junior Creative Producer | | @allextizzar6824 Lexington Ave, Los Angles, CA 90038

Allex Tarr <[email protected]> Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:33 PMTo: Vladamua Videos <[email protected]>

By the way, here are the products we will be using:

Artist Liquid Matte


10/18/2017 Gmail - Make Up For Ever + BuzzFeed Opportunity


Artist Acrylip

Thanks![Quoted text hidden]

Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]> Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:18 PMTo: Allex Tarr <[email protected]>

Hi Alex! Thank you for the offer, but unfortunately I can not do this project. I have an exclusive contract in the lip categorywith one of the major makeup brands. Thank you for thinking of me and I'm wishing you good luck on this project. I bet it's going to be fun!




Allex Tarr <[email protected]> Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:19 PMTo: Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]>

No worries! You're super talented. Good luck with everything you do![Quoted text hidden]

Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]> Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:35 PMTo: Allex Tarr <[email protected]>

Thank you so much!







EXHIBIT 3


From Instagram:


From Facebook:


EXHIBIT 4


EXHIBIT 5


From: [email protected]

Date: December 27, 2017 4:54:08 AM Subject: New message via your website, from [email protected] To: [email protected]

You have a new message:

Via: https://www.vladahaggerty.com/

Message Details:

o Name Tammy Tran

o Email [email protected]

o Subject makeup forever lustrous?

o Message Hi, I was just wondering did you team up with makeup forever on their lustrous collection?

Sent on: 27 December, 2017

Thank you!

From: Tammy Tran <[email protected]> Date: December 27, 2017 11:30:07 AM Subject: Re: New message via your website, from [email protected] To: Vlada Haggerty <[email protected]>

Oh shoot I saw the packaging and it reminded me so much of your metallic lip and I thought so cool that you may have done a collab. Thanks for the quick response. Im a huge fan of your work On Dec 27, 2017 12:15 PM, "Vlada Haggerty" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi! No, I haven't....


Stephen C. McArthur (State Bar No. 277712) THE MCARTHUR ... · makeup designs. 3. Over the past...

Documents

Transcript of Stephen C. McArthur (State Bar No. 277712) THE MCARTHUR ... · makeup designs. 3. Over the past...