A California federal judge has ruled that there is no likelihood of confusion between Marc Jacobs Beauty Eye-Conic Eye Shadow and Korean skin care company Amarte USA Holdings’ Eyeconic eye cream.

All of Amarte’s federal and state law claims for trademark infringement against Marc Jacobs, as well as retailers including Sephora, Nieman Marcus Group and Nordstrom, have failed to survive summary judgement.

According to the lawsuit, filed in a California federal court back in 2023, Amarte USA Holdings claimed that Marc Jacobs sold makeup products labeled as Eye-Conic, infringing the trademark held by Amarte for the Eyeconic mark for use on “eye cosmetics and eye creams.”

Amarte’s Eyeconic Eye Cream launched into the U.S. market in 2013 and is designed to target wrinkles with enhanced-stability retinol. Amarte’s trademark for ‘Eyeconic’ in eye cosmetics and creams was registered in the same year. The Marc Jacobs palette was subsequently released in 2017.

The court found that although Amarte satisfied the first two elements of its infringement claims: (1) that it owns a valid mark, and (2) defendants used the competing mark, the mark itself was weak conceptually and commercially. Amarte could show media coverage in major publications including The Oprah Magazine, Vogue and Vanity Fair, but all the articles referenced Amarte’s EYECONIC product as just one among many other products.

The court also found the marks themselves to be dissimilar as the packaging, size, and shape were completely different for both products. Further, they did not sell via the same retail chanels and there was no evidence of actual cunsumer confusion when the defendants were selling the eye shadow product between 2017 and 2022.

Ultimately, the court found there was no likelihood of confusion.

Marc Jacobs no longer sells its Eyeconic eyeshadow and confirmed that it has no plans to do so in the future.