Frida Kahlo’s picture might really feel culturally ubiquitous however, in response to the corporate that owns her picture, that ubiquity comes with a price ticket. The Frida Kahlo Company filed two lawsuits towards on-line retailers on 4 March, accusing the distributors of promoting merchandise associated to the artist in an unauthorised capability. The corporate has demanded both all earnings from these allegedly counterfeit gross sales or a payout of $2m “for each counterfeit use of the asserted logos”, Courthouse Information reported.
“Defendants’ pictures, art work and spinoff works are nearly equivalent to and/or considerably much like the Frida Kahlo works,” the corporate claimed in its grievance. “Such conduct infringes and continues to infringe the Frida Kahlo works in violation of [US trademark law].”
The Frida Kahlo Company, primarily based in Panama Metropolis, Panama, was based in 2004 by Kahlo’s niece Isolda Pinedo Kahlo, her daughter, Maria Cristina Romeo Pinedo and Venezuelan businessman Carlos Dorado. The corporate owns virtually 30 logos related to the artist, starting from her identify and likeness to soaps and cookware.
The corporate’s lawsuit claims that the web retailers used “fictitious names” to promote objects on varied platforms, together with Amazon.
“Defendants talk with one another and frequently take part in chat rooms and on-line boards concerning techniques for working a number of accounts, evading detection, pending litigation, and potential new lawsuits,” FKC argued.
Trademark litigation has not at all times reached consensus within the Kahlo household, nevertheless. In 2018, the artist’s great-niece, Mara de Anda Romeo, gained a short lived injunction stopping the gross sales of a Frida Kahlo Barbie Doll, publicly criticising Frida Kahlo Company’s determination to associate with Mattel within the manufacturing of a doll that lacked Kahlo’s signature unibrow, Mesoamerican wardrobe and prosthetic leg. Kahlo was a lifelong communist who died in 1954, and her anti-imperialist beliefs knowledgeable her wealthy figurative work. In keeping with her great-niece, the political and social philosophies underlying Kahlo’s indelible self-portraits chafe towards the consumerist aspirations of her namesake firm. Dorado countered with accusations of sabotage, which had been finally dismissed by a choose in 2021, however the Superior Court docket of Justice of Mexico Metropolis dominated within the Frida Kahlo Company’s favour on the problem later that yr.
In 2019, Cristine Melo, a Californian folks artist, filed a federal lawsuit towards the Frida Kahlo Company within the hopes of halting its makes an attempt to stop her from promoting Kahlo-inspired work. She accused Dorado of conning the Kahlo household into handing over management of Frida Kahlo’s legacy.
“It seems that FKC serves improper, wide-ranging takedown notices… forcing artists to both cease making artwork in homage to Frida Kahlo, or be a part of FKC’s program,” Melo’s grievance learn. Melo finally dropped her swimsuit.
