Woman's brutal slap-down of Blake Lively in actress' latest bombshell lawsuit: 'Weak'
Blake Lively was dealt a savage blow while entangled in yet another lawsuit.
In June, the Daily Mail reported that Family Hive LLC, the owner of Lively's haircare line Blake Brown, filed a lawsuit against Kimberlie Hamner, who owns Beauty by Blake, in opposition of the trademarked name.
Family Hive cited a 'likelihood of confusion' between the two brands due to the name, claiming that Beauty by Blake would potentially 'damage' Family Hive's own trademark, Blake Brown, which launched in August 2024.
Following last month's filing, Hamner, a 27-year-old entrepreneur based in Utah, has since hired an attorney in the fight for her trademark and filed her response to Family Hive's opposition on July 14.
She denied the claims, arguing 'there is no likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception' as the two brands 'differ in connotation, commercial impression, and trade channels.'
Lively's Blake Brown sells shampoo, leave in conditioner, hair masks, hair mousse and hair and body mists exclusively at Target stores nationwide and online. Hamner's Beauty by Blake, makes 'cosmetic oils' and 'serums for cosmetic purposes.'
In June, the Daily Mail reported that the owner of Lively's (pictured) brand, Family Hive LLC, filed a lawsuit against Kimberlie Hamner, who owns Beauty by Blake, in opposition of the trademarked name
Lively's Blake Brown (pictured), which launched in August 2024, sells shampoo, leave in conditioner, hair masks, hair mousse and hair and body mists exclusively at Target stores nationwide and online.
The entrepreneur listed her affirmative defenses, including the fact that there are a 'significant number of third-party registrations containing the term "BLAKE" for cosmetic goods and services,' arguing that Beauty by Blake 'exists in a crowded market.'
For example, she states there are other trademarks with 'Blake' used in the name, such as 'Olivia Blake, 'Smooches By Blayke' and 'Ryan Blake.'
'The shared term "BLAKE" is not likely to cause consumer confusion as the term is inherently weak as a name and surname,' she stated.
'"Blake" is Applicant's maiden name, and thus has little inherent distinction such that the other elements of Applicant's Mark are sufficient to make consumer confusion unlikely.'
Hamner concluded: 'Beauty by Blake is sufficiently distinct from Blake Brown such that confusion is unlikely. The fact that both marks share Blake, and that consumers familiar with Blake Brown may recognize the term, is not enough for source confusion to be likely.'
She also stated that she had 'lack of knowledge and lack of willful intent' when filing her trademark almost a year ago.
Daily Mail has reached out to Family Hive's attorney for comment.
Hamner initially filed an application to trademark Beauty by Blake in September 2024, which fell after Family Hive's filings for three trademarks associated with Blake Brown for the brand's name, its honeycomb logo, and the logo with the brand's name.
Hamner said, 'Beauty by Blake is sufficiently distinct from Blake Brown such that confusion is unlikely. The fact that both marks share Blake, and that consumers familiar with Blake Brown may recognize the term, is not enough for source confusion to be likely.'
Hamner argued that there is a 'significant number of third-party registrations containing the term "BLAKE" for cosmetic goods and services,' arguing that Beauty by Blake 'exists in a crowded market.'
Two months after the trademark for Beauty by Blake was published in the Trademark Official Gazette, Family Hive filed an opposition.
In the filing, Family Hive's attorney Leo M. Loughlin argued that the 'Beauty by Blake' trademark 'is likely to be confused, to be deceived, and to assume erroneously that Applicant's goods are those of Family Hive or that Applicant is in some way connected with or sponsored by or affiliated with Family Hive.'
Loughlin said that Hamner has 'no connection whatsoever with Family Hive and no permission or license' was given by Family Hive for her own trademark.
The trademark feud is set against the backdrop of Lively's legal woes involving her former It Ends With Us co-star and director Justin Baldoni, 41, which are at the center of their March 2026 trial.
Judge Lewis Liman delivered a blow to Lively, 37, last week when - after Baldoni's legal team accused the actress of receiving special treatment due to her star status - the judge said that their 'celebrity' is 'irrelevant.'
After admitting that he didn't know who neither Baldoni nor Lively were prior to the case, he warned the Gossip Girl star that celebrity is 'fleeting.'
The remarks came after Lively's deposition was postponed to July 31 and the actress' claims against social media PR expert Jed Wallace were dismissed.
Judge Liman also ordered Lively to produce three years of businesses records, not including her net worth, to Baldoni's team after she claimed the alleged smear campaign had cost her Blake Brown sales.
Judge Liman ordered Lively (pictured) to produce three years of businesses records, not including her net worth, to Baldoni's team after she claimed the alleged smear campaign had cost her Blake Brown sales.
The trademark feud is set against the backdrop of Lively's legal woes involving her former It Ends With Us co-star and director Justin Baldoni, 41, (pictured with Lively in 2024) which are at the center of their March 2026 trial
She previously alleged that Baldoni's attacks in the press and on social media caused sales to decrease by between 56 percent and 78 percent.
'Lively must have some basis for stating that she has suffered economic damages,' the ruling stated.
Last week, Lively was accused of targeting social media users who were believed to be in favor of Baldoni, sparking an uproar online after sending a subpoena to Google requesting information about the accounts specific YouTubers, demanding bank details, addresses and phone numbers.
Notable content creators include conservative firebrand Candace Owens and celebrity blogger Perez Hilton. Others, however, are little-known internet users with only a few hundred followers.
In the wake of her varied legal drama, a source exclusively told the Daily Mail that Lively is laying low and 'avoiding pubic appearances.'
'She doesn't want to be seen out at restaurants or parties or anything to belittle the process [of her lawsuit],' the source said, noting, however, that Lively is 'not scared.'
Following her July 31 deposition, the source added that Lively will be able to 'breathe a sigh of relief.'
'She knows she has to go through a few things to get to the other side, but she isn't looking at it as a bump in the road,' the source said. 'It's a moment for her to tell it like it is, and show that she is serious.'
