A small New York designer has taken legal action against Kim Kardashian's billion-dollar shapewear empire, Skims, accusing the company of copying her brand name and transforming it into a lucrative collection worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The explosive lawsuit claims that Skims pushed ahead with its 'Fits Everybody' line despite repeated warnings from the lesser-known apparel brand Fits Everybody To A T, which asserts it had already secured the rights to the name.
Lawsuit Details
Court documents filed in the Southern District of New York allege that Skims used its celebrity power and vast resources to dominate the market, even though it did not own the trademark. According to the complaint, Skims launched the line 'after receiving repeated, unequivocal notice' of the smaller brand's rights, and later expanded it into one of its most successful collections. 'A company with fewer resources might have reconsidered upon receiving such notice,' the filing states. 'But Defendant, backed by the personal fortune and celebrity platform of Kim Kardashian, had no reason to reconsider.'
The lawsuit describes the case as 'a textbook example of intentional infringement by a massively resourced junior user against a vulnerable senior user.' Denise Cesare, the 61-year-old owner of Fits Everybody To A T, has been selling swimwear and clothing under the name for nearly a decade, while Kardashian launched Skims in 2019. Cesare's team argues that the similarity between the names creates a likelihood that shoppers will assume the brands are connected, leading to what is known as 'reverse confusion.'
Allegations of Market Domination
Cesare's attorney, Jessica Mathews, told the Daily Mail: 'The complaint tells the story of our client – a small, self-funded business founded and run by Denise Cesare. She built her brand from the ground up, years before SKIMS entered the market. What followed, as alleged, is a textbook case of reverse confusion: a far larger, celebrity-backed company adopting a confusingly similar name and rapidly saturating the market through scale, advertising, and the cultural reach of its co-founder, Kim Kardashian.'
The complaint further accuses Skims of leveraging its 'overwhelming financial resources, celebrity connections, and marketing machine' to 'swamp and eclipse' the smaller brand. Cesare claims her business has been pushed so far down search engine rankings as to be 'effectively invisible.' The filing also alleges that Skims 'continued and expanded its use' of the name even after receiving objections, including launching new products and marketing campaigns.
Financial Impact
At the center of the dispute is Skims's hugely lucrative 'Fits Everybody' line, a signature range of shapewear and underwear promoted by Kardashian and fronted by stars including Heidi Klum, Tyra Banks, and Candice Swanepoel. The lawsuit claims that the collection has generated between $700 million and $900 million in revenue. Cesare's legal team emphasized: 'Our client created her brand in 2015. SKIMS didn't exist until 2019. We asked them to stop using her mark almost two years ago. They refused. The USPTO then refused to register their mark twice because of our client's registered mark. Trademark law doesn't care how big you are or how many followers you have. It cares about who was first to use the mark. Our client was first, and had no choice but to file suit to protect her brand and small business.'
USPTO Proceedings
Behind the scenes, the battle had already been brewing at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), where Skims's attempt to trademark 'FITS EVERYBODY' ran into serious trouble. Cesare had already secured two active federal trademarks, one dating back to 2016 and another approved in 2024, both of which are now being used by the USPTO to refuse the Skims application. In a stinging decision issued in December 2025, trademark officials refused the application, warning it was too similar to existing marks and posed a 'likelihood of confusion' for shoppers. Officials pointed to near identical wording and overlapping clothing lines, with some products even deemed 'legally identical.' Skims had six months to respond, eventually filing for a three-month extension on March 3 as the dispute intensified.
Legal Demands
The simmering fight exploded into a federal lawsuit on March 31. Cesare is now seeking damages, profits, and legal costs, as well as an order preventing Skims from continuing to use the name. She is also asking the court to hand over profits from the disputed line, a figure that could run into the hundreds of millions, arguing she has been 'deprived of control' over her brand. If Cesare wins, Kardashian's shapewear empire could be forced to hand over hundreds of millions and ditch one of its most successful lines.
Skims has yet to formally respond. The company has appointed lawyers and requested an extension until May 27 to file its defense. A representative for Kardashian and Skims did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Mail. The brand has already faced legal trouble, having been ordered to pay a $200,000 settlement in January 2026 over claims it wrongly charged New Jersey customers sales tax on exempt clothing between 2019 and 2024.
