A Pennsylvania artist who has operated under the name “Atelier Jolie” since 2021 is blocking Angelina Jolie’s USPTO trademark application for her high-profile New York fashion venture.
The Opposition That Could Derail a Celebrity Fashion Launch
Omnaia Jolie Abdou filed a formal opposition with the USPTO on July 10, 2024, targeting Angelina Jolie’s trademark application for “Atelier Jolie.”
Abdou founded Atelier Jolie, LLC in Easton, Pennsylvania in 2021. Her studio offers custom art pieces, apparel, luxury wear, paintings, sculptures, pottery, prints, and other artistic works. She built her brand through years of promotion before Jolie announced her venture.
Angelina Jolie opened Atelier Jolie in Manhattan’s NoHo neighborhood in fall 2023. The 6,600-square-foot space occupies 57 Great Jones Street, a building with significant artistic history. Andy Warhol purchased the property in 1970 and later leased it to Jean-Michel Basquiat, who lived and worked there from 1983 until his death in 1988. The Landmarks Preservation Commission designated it a historic site in April 2021. Jolie signed an eight-year lease for the location, committing substantial resources to the venture before discovering the trademark conflict.
The celebrity’s concept focuses on sustainable fashion. Customers can bring items for repair, work with skilled tailors to create custom garments, and purchase pieces made from vintage materials and deadstock fabric. Renovations during the buildout uncovered graffiti-covered walls dating to Basquiat’s era, adding to the space’s artistic credentials. The overlap with Abdou’s artistic goods and services creates the conflict now before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
How Priority Rights Determine Who Gets the Name
The central question in any trademark opposition is straightforward: who used the mark first? Abdou claims continuous commercial use since 2021. Jolie filed her trademark application in May 2022 and opened her physical location in late 2023. That timeline gives Abdou a potential two-year head start.
Priority of use matters more than fame in trademark law. A small business owner who establishes rights through actual commercial use can block a celebrity’s later application. The USPTO doesn’t award trademarks based on name recognition or marketing budgets. The federal trademark registration process rewards those who build and protect their brands first. First in time, first in right.
The TTAB will apply the DuPont factors to assess likelihood of confusion. These factors examine mark similarity, goods and services relatedness, trade channel overlap, and evidence of actual confusion. When two parties use identical word marks, as here, the analysis shifts heavily to whether the goods and services are related enough to cause consumer confusion.
Jolie’s attorneys argue there is no actual competition between the establishments. They characterize Abdou’s operation as a fine art studio while Jolie’s focuses on fashion design and custom clothing. The distinction matters because trademark rights are limited to specific categories of goods and services.
But both businesses offer custom apparel and luxury wear. Both operate creative studios offering design services. Both use identical names. When I analyze trademark conflicts, these overlapping elements typically weigh against the junior user. The TTAB may find the goods and services sufficiently related regardless of any geographic separation between Pennsylvania and New York.
Both sides have requested extensions to continue negotiations. Settlement remains possible. TTAB proceedings typically take 18 to 24 months to resolve through trial. Legal fees for a fully litigated opposition can exceed $100,000 per side. If talks fail, Jolie faces the prospect of rebranding a venture she has already invested millions in developing, or paying Abdou for coexistence rights that could have been negotiated before launch.
Celebrity Fashion Ventures and the Risks of Name Selection
Angelina Jolie is not the first celebrity to discover that a desired brand name belongs to someone else. Kylie Jenner famously battled Kylie Minogue over rights to “Kylie” for cosmetics, ultimately withdrawing her application after the Australian singer filed an opposition. Taylor Swift has faced multiple challenges to trademark applications for song lyrics and catchphrases, with varying results. Beyoncé encountered resistance when seeking to trademark “Blue Ivy” for her daughter’s name. The pattern repeats because celebrities often select names based on personal meaning rather than conducting a thorough trademark clearance search first.
The word “atelier” appears in hundreds of trademark registrations. French for “workshop,” it signals craftsmanship and artisanal quality in fashion and design circles. Pairing it with a surname creates distinctiveness but also collision risk. Anyone sharing that surname, or using it professionally, becomes a potential obstacle.
Jolie’s choice carried additional complexity. “Jolie” is both her professional surname and a common French word meaning “pretty.” Omnaia Jolie Abdou uses “Jolie” as part of her legal name. Neither party invented the term. Both have legitimate claims to incorporate it into their business identity.
The fashion industry’s embrace of founder names and heritage branding amplifies these conflicts. Consumers expect fashion houses to bear their creators’ names. That expectation drives celebrity entrepreneurs toward personal branding. But personal names receive weaker trademark protection than coined or arbitrary marks, precisely because multiple people may share the same name.
Geographic separation once provided natural market boundaries. A Pennsylvania art studio and a New York fashion house might have coexisted indefinitely in the pre-internet era. Online commerce erased those boundaries. Both Atelier Jolies can reach the same customers through websites, social media, and shipping. The TTAB will evaluate confusion potential in this borderless marketplace.
Protecting Your Brand Before You Build It
The Atelier Jolie dispute illustrates why trademark clearance must happen before any public announcement. Jolie’s team filed the trademark application in May 2022, over a year after Abdou began using the identical name commercially. A proper trademark search conducted before filing would have revealed Abdou’s prior use.
Clearance searches must look beyond the USPTO database. Abdou may not have held a federal registration when Jolie filed, but she had established common law rights through actual commercial use. Common law trademark rights arise automatically when a business uses a mark in commerce. They don’t require registration. They don’t appear in the federal database. They can still block a later application.
Professional clearance searches examine state trademark registrations, business name filings, domain registrations, social media presence, and industry directories. The goal is identifying anyone who might claim prior rights before you invest in branding, marketing, and physical buildout. A search costing $500 to $1,500 could have prevented an opposition costing $50,000 to $150,000 or more. The math strongly favors prevention.
For existing business owners like Abdou, the lesson differs. Once you establish a brand, implement ongoing trademark monitoring to catch conflicting applications early. The USPTO publishes pending applications for public review. Catching a conflict during the opposition window costs far less than litigation after registration.
Filing your own federal application also strengthens your position. Federal registration provides nationwide priority from your filing date, presumption of ownership, and access to federal courts. The filing fee starts at $250 per class of goods or services. Abdou’s opposition would carry even more weight if she held a registration predating Jolie’s application.
When a Name Conflict Threatens Your Business
The Atelier Jolie case demonstrates how quickly trademark disputes can escalate. A small studio owner in Pennsylvania now controls the fate of a Hollywood star’s fashion venture. The resolution will cost both parties significant legal fees regardless of outcome. One party will likely need to rebrand or pay for coexistence rights.
These conflicts are easier to prevent than resolve. Whether you are launching a creative venture, expanding into new markets, or building a brand around your name, proper clearance research identifies obstacles before they become expensive problems. The investment in upfront due diligence pays for itself many times over when it reveals a conflict you can navigate around.
If you are planning a brand launch or concerned about protecting an existing name, contact me for a consultation to discuss your trademark strategy. Early action prevents the kind of costly opposition proceedings that can derail even the most promising ventures.
