Conde Nast v. Drake, 21 Savage

Case 1:22-cv-09517 Document 1 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------- X
:
ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS INC.
:
d/b/a CONDÉ NAST,
: No. _______________
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
: COMPLAINT
:
AUBREY DRAKE GRAHAM p/k/a DRAKE,
:
SHÉYAA BIN ABRAHAM-JOSEPH p/k/a 21
:
SAVAGE, and HILTZIK STRATEGIES, LLC,
:
:
Defendants.
:
----------------------------------------------------------- X
Plaintiff Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. d/b/a Condé Nast (“Condé Nast”), as and for
its Complaint against Defendants Aubrey Drake Graham p/k/a Drake (“Drake”), Shéyaa Bin
Abraham-Joseph p/k/a 21 Savage (“21 Savage”) and Hiltzik Strategies, LLC (“Hiltzik Strategies”),
alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Condé Nast is the owner of Vogue magazine, one of the longest-running and widely
recognized fashion publications in the world, as well as the VOGUE trademarks that the
magazine’s tens of millions of print and online readers and the broader public associate exclusively
with Vogue. This action arises out of a widespread promotional campaign recently launched by
world-famous musical artists Drake and 21 Savage, built entirely on the use of the VOGUE marks
and the premise that Drake and 21 Savage would be featured on the cover of Vogue’s next issue
as a means of promoting Defendants’ newly released album Her Loss.
2. All of this is false. And none of it has been authorized by Condé Nast. In
furtherance of their deceptive campaign, Defendants have gone so far as to create a counterfeit
issue of Vogue magazine—distributing copies in North America’s largest metropolitan areas,
23090927
plastering posters of the counterfeit cover along streets and buildings throughout these cities, and
disseminating images of the unauthorized counterfeit magazine to the more than 135 million social
media users who actively follow Drake and 21 Savage on social media along with an untold
number of others who have viewed false social media posts like this:
3. To enhance the appearance of authenticity, the rollout of this false campaign
deliberately mimicked the promotional activities undertaken and encouraged by Condé Nast in
advance of the release of each issue of Vogue, which, like Defendants’ false campaign, is
accompanied by the placement of posters of the upcoming cover in central locations throughout
major metropolitan areas, and social media posts from the cover model(s), as illustrated below
with respect to September 2022 issue:
2
4. Not surprisingly in light of the deliberately deceptive intent, rather than offer any
indication that Defendants’ supposed cover was of a counterfeit magazine, Defendants’ social
media posts on both Instagram and Twitter instead are accompanied by the following explicitly
false statements: “Me and my brother on newsstands tomorrow!! Thanks @voguemagazine
and Anna Wintour for the love and support on this historic moment. Her Loss Nov 4th.”
5. Vogue magazine and its Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour have had no involvement in
Her Loss or its promotion, and have not endorsed it in any way. Nor did Condé Nast authorize,
much less support, the creation and widespread dissemination of a counterfeit issue of Vogue, or a
counterfeit version of perhaps one of the most carefully curated covers in all of the publication
business in service of promoting Defendants’ new album.
6. That Defendants would knowingly violate Condé Nast’s rights in this manner
underscores the tremendous value that a cover feature in Vogue magazine carries, here, to amplify
3
sales of an album that was to be released days after Defendants commenced their deceptive
campaign. This of course was Defendants’ aim.
7. The confusion among the public is unmistakable. Immediately following
Defendants’ deceptive social media posts, numerous media outlets published stories with titles like
Drake & 21 Savage Land Vogue Cover Ahead Of Collab Album ‘Her Loss’, Drake and 21 Savage
are Vogue’s new cover stars, and Drake & 21 Savage Make History On The Cover Of ‘Vogue’.
The reporting in these articles underscores the confusion caused by Defendants’ deceptive
campaign, including, for example, the following:
While they’ve since confirmed that we’ll be hearing the highly anticipated album
this coming Friday (November 4), in the meantime, Drizzy [i.e. Drake] has shared
the exciting news that he and the Saint Laurent Don will be the ones to grace the
cover of the latest issue of Vogue, landing on newsstands today (October 31). …
The accompanying cover story has yet to be released, but when it is, you can rest
assured it will be loaded with all kinds of juicy information about the prolific
rhymers and their work – both past, present, and future.
8. User comments on the Internet also reflect this confusion, and the widespread belief
that the counterfeit issue and counterfeit cover disseminated by Defendants were real:
• “Looking forward to picking this one up! @voguemagazine”
• “FINALLY OMG!!! like bffr...A FASHION ICON”
• “Something is telling me this will be a classic”
• “just wait until they talk about the album in the magazine tomorrow and they reflect
on features”
• “you think it’s gonna sell out before i can get to it tomorrow afternoon?”
• “Excited to read what they say about the project”
• “This project gonna be special. You not covering Vogue for some thrown together
tape BS. (One can hope anyway)”
• “It’s real. Also magazines can have multiple covers”
4
9. Since as early as October 31, Condé Nast and its counsel engaged with Defendants
repeatedly to demand that they cease their infringing activities and take appropriate remedial
measures to curtail further public confusion, before the release of Defendants’ album on November
4. Nothing was done, with Defendants continuing to benefit from the infringing social media posts
that would take seconds to take down. Defendants’ flippant disregard for Condé Nast’s rights have
left it with no choice but to commence this action and seek the immediate injunctive relief
requested herein, together with any and all available monetary remedies to deter the type of flagrant
infringements and false advertising in which Defendants have engaged.
THE PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Condé Nast is a New York corporation with its principal place of business
at One World Trade Center, New York, NY 10007, and is the owner of Vogue magazine.
11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Aubrey Drake Graham p/k/a “Drake” is
an individual residing in Beverly Hills, California.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Shéyaa Bin Abraham-Joseph p/k/a “21
Savage” is an individual residing in Alpharetta, Georgia.
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hiltzik Strategies is a New York limited
liability company with its principal place of business at 99 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor, New
York, New York 10016.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28
U.S.C. § 1338, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as this case arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051
et seq., and the state law claims arise under the same operative facts.
5
15. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, among other things,
each Defendant may be found in New York, does systematic and continuous business in New York
and/or has performed acts directed at and causing harm in New York which give rise to this action.
16. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS
PLAINTIFF’S LONGSTANDING USE AND

REGISTRATION OF THE VOGUE TRADEMARK
17. Condé Nast and its predecessors have adopted and continuously used in commerce
the well-known trademark VOGUE as the title of a fashion magazine since at least as early as
1892, and have operated a corresponding website (www.vogue.com) since at least as early as 1998.
In the 130 years since its first publication, Vogue magazine has become one of the most widely
recognized and revered fashion publications in the world.
18. Condé Nast owns more than sixty active and valid U.S. registrations for trademarks
comprised of the word “Vogue” and/or its well-known logo, with the earliest dating back to 1908
(U.S. Reg. No. 0,069,530) for use in connection with magazines. Others include Reg. No.
0,125,542, issued May 20, 1919, for the well-known logo for the VOGUE trademark, Reg. Nos.
0,504,006, 1,336,659, 2,592,452, 3,069,976, 4,138,408, 4,964,883, 4,964,884, 5,915,018,
6,324,126 and many others (collectively, the “Vogue Mark”). True and correct copies of the
foregoing registrations are annexed hereto collectively as Exhibit A.
19. Condé Nast and its predecessors have expended considerable time, resources, and
effort in promoting the VOGUE Mark and developing substantial goodwill associated therewith
throughout the United States during the 130-year history of its use in association with Vogue
magazine. Due to the continual use of the VOGUE Mark by Condé Nast and its predecessors over
6
that period, the VOGUE Mark has come to indicate a single source of goods and services. And its
specific stylization has long been well established:
20. The general public instantly recognizes and associates the VOGUE Mark with
Vogue magazine. So widespread is public knowledge of the magazine that Vogue was described
by book critic Caroline Weber in a December 2006 edition of The New York Times as “the world’s
most influential fashion magazine.”
21. The United States edition of Vogue magazine is read by over 9 million people each
month. The corresponding U.S. website receives approximately 18 million unique visitors each
month.
22. In addition to its magazine and website, Condé Nast uses the VOGUE Mark on
social media accounts associated with Vogue magazine, including Instagram, Twitter, Facebook
and Pinterest. Underscoring its reach, Vogue magazine has over 70 million social media followers,
including over 41 million followers on Instagram (@voguemagazine), 15 million followers on
Twitter (@voguemagazine), and nearly 10 million followers on Facebook (@Vogue Magazine).
23. As a result of the longstanding and continuous use of the VOGUE Mark, the
VOGUE Mark has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation and has become famous, as
multiple courts have recognized in the past.
24. A representative example of Condé Nast’s easily recognizable Vogue magazine,
using the VOGUE mark, is reflected on the cover of the current November 2022 issue:
7
DEFENDANTS’ FALSE, DECEPTIVE AND UNAUTHORIZED USES OF

THE VOGUE MARK TO PROMOTE THEIR NEW ALBUM HER LOSS
25. Defendants’ deceptive promotional campaign deliberately seeks to capitalize, and
has capitalized, on the substantial goodwill and value associated with the VOGUE Mark to
promote and drive up sales of Defendants’ recently released album Her Loss (the “Album”),
without Condé Nast’s authorization.
26. The Album was released on November 4. On October 30, five days in advance of
the Album’s release, a Twitter account associated with Drake (@drakerelated) posted the
8
following image of the counterfeit magazine (the “Counterfeit Magazine”), showing the
counterfeit cover (the “Counterfeit Cover”):
27. The image was captioned with this announcement (attached as Exhibit B):
9
28. Shortly thereafter, both Drake and 21 Savage posted the identically worded
announcement on their own Instagram pages (attached as Exhibit C), with the identical
arrangement showing the Counterfeit Cover:
29. Neither Condé Nast nor Anna Wintour authorized the creation of the Counterfeit
Magazine, the dissemination of images of the Counterfeit Cover, the use of the VOGUE Mark, or
the use of its Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour’s name in this or any other manner.
30. The unauthorized dissemination of images of the Counterfeit Cover continued
thereafter. Later on October 30, the Drake Related Twitter account released the following image
(attached as Exhibit D), juxtaposing an image of the Counterfeit Cover with real issues of Vogue
and other fashion magazines to further enhance the appearance of authenticity:
10
31. The following morning at 10:40 am EDT, Defendant Hiltzik Strategies—upon
information and belief, Defendants’ public relations firm retained to promote Her Loss—sent out
an email blast to an untold number of blind copy recipients advising that, “To celebrate Drake’s
Vogue cover and his joint album HER LOSS, Street teams will be handing out copies of the
magazine Monday Afternoon in select cities across America.”
32. Approximately one hour later, at 11:44 am EDT, Condé Nast’s Global Counsel for
IP and Content Integrity, Christopher Donnellan, responded to Hiltzik Strategies by email
11
(attached as Exhibit E), making clear that Defendants’ infringing activities were not authorized,
and demanding that Defendants “immediately cease and desist this unauthorized use of the Vogue
trademark by removing the Instagram post, ceasing any distribution of this ‘magazine,’ and issuing
a public statement clarifying that this was not an actual cover of Vogue.”
33. Hiltzik Strategies replied with the perfunctory response: “Thank you for the email,
letting you know that it was was [sic] received.” (See Ex. E). Rather than take any of the remedial
actions demanded by Condé Nast, Defendants thereafter intensified the unauthorized and
deceptive advertising campaign.
34. Following Defendants’ receipt of Condé Nast’s demand, the Drake Related Twitter
account posted the multitude of locations at which the Counterfeit Magazine would be distributed
in New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Miami, Houston and Toronto (attached collectively as Exhibit
F), including, for example, the following locations just in New York and Los Angeles:
• Columbia University, Broadway & W 116th St

• W 125th St & Malcolm X Blvd, New York, NY 10027
• Canal St & Lafayette St, New York, NY 10013
• West 34th St & 8th Ave, Manhattan, NY 10123
• 4th Ave & Pacific St, Brooklyn, NY 11217
• Flatbush Av – Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, NY 11217
• 417 E Fordham Rd, The Bronx, NY 10458
• Dyckman St & Broadway, New York, NY 10034
• 179th St, Jamaica, NY 11432
• Forest Hills 71 Ave Station, Queens, NY 11375
• Kosher News, 370 N Fairfax Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90036
• Al’s Newstand, 216 S Beverly Dr, Beverly Hills, CA 90212
• Farmers Market USPS, 6333 W 3rd St #818, Los Angeles, CA 90036
• The Locals News Stand, 217 W 6th St, Los Angeles, CA 90014
• Malibu J’s Gift Shop, 1515 Ocean Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90401
• Century World News, 10597 W Pico Blvd
35. Posts on social media propagated, showing copies of the Counterfeit Magazine that
individuals had procured, including the following post on November 1:
12
36. A review of the Counterfeit Magazine itself reveals that it is a complete,
professionally reprinted reproduction of the October issue of Vogue, with unauthorized
adaptations made in service of promoting Defendants’ Album.1
1
Condé Nast has filed an application for copyright registration for the October issue that
Defendants have infringed, and intends to file an amended complaint after registration is secured.
13
37. Some pages have no modifications, constituting an exact reproduction of Condé
Nast’s copyrightable content. Other pages are modified to superimpose promotional logos for
Defendants’ Album. Others include images of Anna Wintour that were not in the real issue, and
in one case was doctored to interpose an image of Drake. Examples are shown below:
38. Anna Wintour did not authorize the use of her image to promote Defendants’
Album. Upon information and belief, other than Defendants themselves, none of the other dozens
of individuals whose images were in the authentic October issue of Vogue, and are now depicted
in the Counterfeit Magazine, authorized the use of their images to promote Defendants’ Album.
39. Defendants also placed blown-up print posters of the Counterfeit Cover at various
locations throughout these cities, including prominently throughout New York City:
14
40. The Counterfeit Cover—as depicted in these posters, on Defendants’ social media
posts described herein, and on the face of the Counterfeit Magazine—provides no indication that
it is anything other than the cover of an authentic Vogue issue.
THE RESULTING PUBLIC DECEPTION AND CONFUSION
41. Not surprisingly, widespread public confusion that the Counterfeit Cover and
Counterfeit Magazine were authentic immediately followed. Erroneous press accounts were
issued, including the following (attached collectively as Exhibit G):
• Yahoo News2 posted a Revolt article titled Drake and 21 Savage land on the cover
of ‘Vogue’, erroneously reporting: “This Friday (Nov. 4), Drake and 21 Savage
will unveil their joint album, Her Loss, to the masses. Before that takes place,
2
See https://www.yahoo.com/video/drake-21-savage-land-cover-
121225115.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guc
e_referrer_sig=AQAAAABOaYOGhPbZdCdqNR42OvsMAho4pjfhDKuBYg2jbkXDFaZOvkP
mMUbLHsCUgID_5nqmGQOfAs2RZ37R0ptUN98Opcd7osNUOkLanLXj1gzeRcfSdNSCuccF
5RWe0BzzY5CGRKIiBJqvm0-F7vLmURxpHw7bwwGX9laXHVALXAft.
15
the chart-topping duo revealed that they’ve landed on the cover of Vogue’s
latest issue.”
• All Hop Hop3 posted an article titled Drake & 21 Savage Land Vogue Cover Ahead
Of Collab Album ‘Her Loss’, erroneously reporting: “While Drake and 21 Savage
delayed the release of their upcoming surprise album Her Loss earlier this
week, the rollout continues with the two rappers appearing on the cover of
iconic fashion bible Vogue.”
• HipHopDX4 posted an article titled DRAKE & 21 SAVAGE COVER ‘VOGUE’

MAGAZINE AHEAD OF ‘HER LOSS’ ALBUM, erroneously reporting: “Drake
and 21 Savage have covered the latest issue of Vogue alongside one another as
their Her Loss joint project is set to arrive later this week. The fashion
magazine cover hit stands on Monday (October 31) featuring the pair of
rappers draped in black threads with 21 keeping his face covered with his
hand.”
• View the Vibe5 posted an article titled Drake and 21 Savage are Vogue’s new cover
stars, erroneously reporting: “Drake and 21 Savage’s new album Her Loss is not
the only thing that’s coming out this week. The rapper posted that the duo is
Vogue’s October cover star. … This special edition of Vogue’s October issue
will be available at various locations across New York City. … Having the
rappers on the cover of Vogue is definitely different for Vogue.”
• HotNewHipHop6 posted an article titled Drake & 21 Savage Make History On The
Cover Of “Vogue”, erroneously reporting: “While they’ve since confirmed that
we’ll be hearing the highly anticipated album this coming Friday (November
4), in the meantime, Drizzy [i.e. Drake] has shared the exciting news that he
and the Saint Laurent Don will be the ones to grace the cover of the latest issue
of Vogue, landing on newsstands today (October 31). … The accompanying
cover story has yet to be released, but when it is, you can rest assured it will be
loaded with all kinds of juicy information about the prolific rhymers and their
work – both past, present, and future.”
42. The Wikipedia entry for the “List of Vogue (US) cover models” (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Vogue_(US)_cover_models#2022) was updated to further
3
See https://allhiphop.com/news/drake-21-savage-land-vogue-cover/.
4
See https://hiphopdx.com/news/drake-21-savage-her-loss-vogue.
5
See https://viewthevibe.com/drake-and-21-savage-are-vogues-new-cover-stars/.
6
See https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/445575-drake-21-savage-make-history-on-the-
cover-of-vogue.
16
reflect and propagate the public’s erroneous belief that Drake and 21 Savage were cover models
on an authentic issue of Vogue magazine:
43. Public confusion is further reflected in user comments posted on various websites
and social media posts, including the following:
• “Looking forward to picking this one up! @voguemagazine”
• “FINALLY OMG!!! like bffr...A FASHION ICON”
• “Something is telling me this will be a classic”
• “just wait until they talk about the album in the magazine tomorrow and they reflect
on features”
• “you think it’s gonna sell out before i can get to it tomorrow afternoon?”
• “Excited to read what they say about the project”
• “This project gonna be special. You not covering Vogue for some thrown together
tape BS. (One can hope anyway)”
• “It’s real. Also magazines can have multiple covers”
17
DEFENDANTS’ CONTINUING VIOLATION OF CONDÉ NAST’S RIGHTS
44. Following its initial cessation demand on October 31, Condé Nast has attempted to
resolve this matter amicably, including through counsel, predicated on the threshold requirement
that Defendants take the necessary remedial measures to cease their infringing activities and
remove the infringing materials from circulation.
45. Defendants have refused, preferring to continue to exploit the VOGUE Mark (and
Anna Wintour’s name and image) to drive up sales of the Album through the social media posts
depicting the Counterfeit Cover—with the explicitly false statements attesting to Condé Nast’s
and its Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour’s endorsement—the continued display of the posters
showing the Counterfeit Cover in some of the largest metropolitan areas in North America, and
the continued distribution of the Counterfeit Magazines.
46. As of the date of this filing, all of the infringing posts remain available online,
including on the social media accounts maintained by and/or associated with Drake and 21 Savage.
Posters of the Counterfeit Cover continue to be plastered throughout New York, Los Angeles,
Atlanta, Miami, Houston and Toronto. And, upon information and belief, copies of the Counterfeit
Magazine continue to be available for sale in these locations.
47. Not only have Defendants refused to remove and cease dissemination of the
infringing materials, but they have doubled down with new displays of the Counterfeit Cover, days
after Condé Nast’s initial demand (attached as Exhibit H):
18
FIRST CLAIM
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT / COUNTERFEITING (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
48. Condé Nast repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
19
49. Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), imposes liability against
“[a]ny person who shall, without the consent of the registrant -- (a) use in commerce any
reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the
sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with
which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or (b) reproduce,
counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit,
copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or
advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for
sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is
likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive[.]”
50. Condé Nast is the owner of the valid and incontestable VOGUE Mark, as described
above.
51. Defendants’ use of Condé Nast’s registered VOGUE Mark and colorable imitations
thereof in connection with their online presence and the advertising and promotion of their goods
and services in commerce, including in connection with the Counterfeit Cover, Counterfeit
Magazine and Defendants’ Album, is likely to cause confusion, and to cause mistake, and to
deceive, in violation of § 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).
52. Defendants’ use of the registered VOGUE Mark and colorable imitations thereof
constitutes willful trademark infringement under § 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).
53. By reason of Defendants’ willful use of the counterfeit VOGUE Mark in connection
with the promotion and distribution of the Album and the Counterfeit Magazine, Condé Nast is
entitled, at its election, to recovery of (i) treble Defendants’ profits from the sales of the Album
and the Counterfeit Magazine, or treble Plaintiff’s damages, whichever is greater (15 U.S.C.
§ 1117(b)); or (ii) statutory damages of up to $4,000,000 (15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2)); or (iii)
20
Defendants’ profits and Plaintiff’s damages, increased subject to the principles of equity, together
with the costs of this action (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)).
54. Defendants’ infringements have caused, and unless restrained by this Court will
continue to cause, immediate and irreparable injury to Condé Nast’s property and business,
entitling Condé Nast to injunctive relief (15 U.S.C. § 1116), including, without limitation, an order
directing the removal and destruction of all physical copies of the Counterfeit Cover and
Counterfeit Magazine.
55. Defendants’ intentional, deliberate, and willful use of the VOGUE Mark and
colorable imitations thereof in connection with the Counterfeit Cover, Counterfeit Magazine and
Album, with knowledge of Condé Nast’s rights in the registered VOGUE Mark, renders this case
exceptional, entitling Condé Nast to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection
with this action.
SECOND CLAIM
FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN / UNFAIR COMPETITION
(15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
57. Section 43(a)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1), imposes liability
against “[a]ny person who, on or in connection with any good or services, … uses in commerce
any word, term, name, symbol, … or any false designation of origin, … which – (A) is likely to
cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive … as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of
his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person[.]”
58. Defendants’ use of the VOGUE Mark falsely suggests that Condé is the source of,
has authorized, is associated with and/or has endorsed the Counterfeit Cover, the Counterfeit
Magazine and Album, and is likely to deceive the relevant trade and public into believing that
21
these materials are authorized, associated with and/or endorsed or approved by, or provided in
affiliation with, Condé Nast, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
entitled to recovery of Defendants’ profits and Plaintiff’s damages, increased subject to the
principles of equity, together with the costs of this action (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)).
60. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and unless restrained by this Court will continue
to cause, immediate and irreparable injury to Condé Nast’s property and business, entitling Condé
Nast to injunctive relief (15 U.S.C. § 1116), including, without limitation, an order directing the
removal and destruction of all physical copies of the Counterfeit Cover and Counterfeit Magazine.
with this action.
THIRD CLAIM
DILUTION (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))
63. The VOGUE Mark is distinctive and famous within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §
1125(c) by virtue of its inherent and acquired distinctiveness; the long duration and wide extent of
the VOGUE Mark’s use; the long duration, wide extent, and wide geographic reach of advertising
and publicity of the VOGUE Mark; the large volume and wide geographic extent of sales of goods
22
and services offered under the VOGUE Mark; the high degree of actual recognition of the VOGUE
Mark; and the longstanding federal registrations of the VOGUE Mark.
64. Defendants have used the VOGUE Mark in commerce in connection with the sale
and distribution of the Counterfeit Magazine and Defendants’ Album, for Defendants’ commercial
gain.
65. Defendants’ use of the VOGUE Mark is likely to cause dilution by blurring and/or
tarnishment, by creating a false association between Defendants and Vogue magazine, impairing
the distinctiveness of the VOGUE mark, and impairing the reputation and goodwill associated
with the VOGUE Mark.
66. Defendants’ use of the VOGUE Mark was willfully intended to trade on the
recognition of the famous VOGUE Mark and/or willfully intended to harm the reputation of the
famous VOGUE Mark, such that Condé Nast is entitled to recovery of Defendants’ profits and
Plaintiff’s damages, increased subject to the principles of equity, together with the costs of this
action (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)).
entitling Condé Nast to injunctive relief (15 U.S.C. § 1116), including, without limitation, an order
directing the removal and destruction of all physical copies of the Counterfeit Cover and
Counterfeit Magazine.
with this action.
23
FOURTH CLAIM
FALSE ADVERTISING (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
70. Defendants have made false, deceptive, and misleading representations in their
commercial advertising concerning the nature, characteristics, and qualities of their goods,
services, and commercial activities, in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B).
71. Defendants’ false, deceptive, and misleading descriptions and representations—
including that the Counterfeit Magazine and Counterfeit Cover are authentic, and that Condé Nast
created, approved and/or endorsed the creation and dissemination of these materials—have
deceived and are likely to deceive consumers.
72. Defendants’ false, deceptive, and misleading statements to promote sales of their
Album and Counterfeit Magazine have damaged the goodwill and reputation that the VOGUE
Mark has acquired over the 130-year period of its continuous use in connection with Vogue
magazine, and caused economic injury to Condé Nast by, inter alia, diverting and/or suppressing
sales of genuine issues of Vogue.
73. Defendants’ false and misleading statements and representations concerning the
Counterfeit Magazine and Counterfeit Cover to market the Album are willful, deliberate,
intentional and in bad faith.
74. By reason of the foregoing, Condé Nast is entitled to recovery of Defendants’
profits and Plaintiff’s damages, increased subject to the principles of equity, together with the costs
of this action (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)).
24
75. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and unless restrained by this Court will continue
to cause, immediate and irreparable injury to Condé Nast’s property and business, entitling Condé
Nast to injunctive relief (15 U.S.C. § 1116).
76. Defendants’ knowingly false statements and representations concerning the
Counterfeit Magazine and Counterfeit Cover renders this case exceptional, entitling Plaintiff to an
award of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this action.
FIFTH CLAIM
VIOLATION OF N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 360-k
78. Condé Nast is the owner of the valid and subsisting VOGUE Mark, as described
above, which has been duly registered in New York.
79. Defendants’ use of the counterfeit VOGUE Mark and colorable imitations thereof
in connection with the advertising, sale and distribution of their goods and services, including the
Counterfeit Magazine and their Album, is likely to cause confusion, and to cause mistake, and to
deceive, in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 360-k.
80. For the reasons described herein, Defendants’ acts of infringement are willful,
intentional and deliberate, and have been committed with knowledge of Condé Nast’s rights with
respect to the VOGUE Mark, and in bad faith.
entitled to recovery of treble profits and damages, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees,
pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 360-m.
25
entitling Condé Nast to injunctive relief, including, without limitation, an order directing the
SIXTH CLAIM
COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT / UNFAIR COMPETITION
84. Condé Nast has acquired rights to the VOGUE Mark through its use over the course
of Vogue magazine’s 130-year history.
85. Defendants’ misappropriation and use of the counterfeit VOGUE Mark and
colorable imitations thereof in connection with the advertising, sale and distribution of their goods
and services, including the Counterfeit Magazine and their Album, is likely to cause confusion,
and to cause mistake, and to deceive, in violation of Condé Nast’s common law rights with respect
to the VOGUE Mark.
86. For the reasons described herein, Defendants’ acts of infringement are willful,
intentional and deliberate, and have been committed with knowledge of Condé Nast’s rights with
respect to the VOGUE Mark, and in bad faith.
87. By reason of the foregoing, Condé Nast is entitled to an award of damages,
including exemplary and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
entitling Condé Nast to injunctive relief, including, without limitation, an order directing the
26
SEVENTH CLAIM
VIOLATION OF N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW §§ 349 AND 350
90. Defendants’ false, misleading, and deceptive statements, representations and
advertising concerning the Counterfeit Cover and Counterfeit Magazine, and Condé Nast’s
endorsement thereof, constitute deceptive business practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §
349.
91. Defendants’ false, misleading, and deceptive statements and representations of fact
are directed toward consumers, and have resulted in harm to the public interest in New York and
nationwide through the deception of the millions of consumers who have been deceived thereby.
92. By reason of Defendants’ conduct, Condé Nast has suffered injury in fact in an
amount to be proven at trial.
93. Defendants’ conduct is and, at all relevant times, has been willful, deliberate,
intentional, and in bad faith.
94. By reason of the foregoing, Condé Nast is thus entitled to award of damages,
including exemplary and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
95. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and unless restrained by the Court will continue
to cause, irreparable injury to Condé Nast and to members of the public, and should be enjoined.
27
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Condé Nast respectfully requests the following relief:
a. Temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
i. enjoining and restraining Defendants, their agents, or anyone working for,
in concert with or on behalf of any of the Defendants, and each of their
officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons
who are in active concert or participation with Defendants (the “Restrained
Parties”), from making, using, displaying, disseminating, or distributing: (i)
copies or images of the Counterfeit Magazine or Counterfeit Cover; (ii) the
VOGUE Mark, or any mark that is confusingly similar to, or a derivation or
colorable imitation of, the VOGUE Mark, for commercial purposes,
including, without limitation, to advertise, market, or promote the album Her
Loss; (iii) Wintour’s name, image or likeness for commercial purposes,
including, without limitation, to advertise, market, or promote the album Her
Loss; and/or (iv) any false or misleading statements or misrepresentations
concerning the Counterfeit Magazine, the Counterfeit Cover and/or Drake
and 21 Savage’s participation or appearance in Vogue magazine
(collectively, the “Enjoined Content”).
ii. directing Defendants to take down and remove from public display and
circulation: (i) all existing Internet and social media posts on all websites
and social media accounts within Defendants’ ownership, control, or
direction, which contain or reflect the Enjoined Content; and (ii) all existing
physical copies of the Counterfeit Cover and/or the Counterfeit Magazine,
28
in all locations, that were placed, displayed or circulated by or at the
direction the Restrained Parties.
b. An Order directing the Restrained Parties to deliver up for destruction all physical
copies of any and all Enjoined Content, including, without limitation, all goods, labels, signs,
prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements depicting the Counterfeit Magazine
and/or the Counterfeit Cover.
c. On the First, Second, Third and Fourth Claims, an award, at Plaintiff’s election, of
(i) treble Defendants’ profits from the sales of the Album and the Counterfeit Magazine, or treble
Plaintiff’s damages, whichever is greater; (ii) statutory damages of up to $4,000,000; or (iii)
Defendants’ profits and Plaintiff’s damages, increased subject to the principles of equity, in an
amount to be determined at trial.
d. On the Fifth Claim, an award of treble Defendants’ profits and Plaintiff’s damages,
in an amount to be determined at trial.
e. On the Sixth and Seventh Claims, an award of damages, including exemplary and
punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
f. An award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
g. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
h. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
29
Dated: November 7, 2022

New York, New York
LOEB & LOEB LLP
By: /s/ Wook Hwang

Wook Hwang
Frank D’Angelo
Mary Jean Kim
David Forrest
345 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10154
Tel: (212) 407-4000
Attorneys for Plaintiff Advance Magazine

Publishers Inc. d/b/a Condé Nast
30

Conde Nast v. Drake, 21 Savage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conde Nast v. Drake, 21 Savage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-09517 Document 1 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NATURE OF THE ACTION

as a means of promoting Defendants’ newly released album Her Loss.

issue of Vogue magazine—distributing copies in North America’s largest metropolitan areas,

3. To enhance the appearance of authenticity, the rollout of this false campaign

with respect to September 2022 issue:

false statements: “Me and my brother on newsstands tomorrow!! Thanks @voguemagazine

business in service of promoting Defendants’ new album.

campaign. This of course was Defendants’ aim.

7. The confusion among the public is unmistakable. Immediately following

campaign, including, for example, the following:

• “Looking forward to picking this one up! @voguemagazine”

• “FINALLY OMG!!! like bffr...A FASHION ICON”

• “Something is telling me this will be a classic”

• “Excited to read what they say about the project”

• “It’s real. Also magazines can have multiple covers”

infringements and false advertising in which Defendants have engaged.

an individual residing in Beverly Hills, California.

Savage” is an individual residing in Alpharetta, Georgia.

York, New York 10016.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS

PLAINTIFF’S LONGSTANDING USE AND

recognized and revered fashion publications in the world.

0,504,006, 1,336,659, 2,592,452, 3,069,976, 4,138,408, 4,964,883, 4,964,884, 5,915,018,

foregoing registrations are annexed hereto collectively as Exhibit A.

specific stylization has long been well established:

most influential fashion magazine.”

including over 41 million followers on Instagram (@voguemagazine), 15 million followers on

Twitter (@voguemagazine), and nearly 10 million followers on Facebook (@Vogue Magazine).

multiple courts have recognized in the past.

24. A representative example of Condé Nast’s easily recognizable Vogue magazine,

DEFENDANTS’ FALSE, DECEPTIVE AND UNAUTHORIZED USES OF

25. Defendants’ deceptive promotional campaign deliberately seeks to capitalize, and

without Condé Nast’s authorization.

counterfeit cover (the “Counterfeit Cover”):

arrangement showing the Counterfeit Cover:

30. The unauthorized dissemination of images of the Counterfeit Cover continued

and other fashion magazines to further enhance the appearance of authenticity:

31. The following morning at 10:40 am EDT, Defendant Hiltzik Strategies—upon

magazine Monday Afternoon in select cities across America.”

IP and Content Integrity, Christopher Donnellan, responded to Hiltzik Strategies by email

deceptive advertising campaign.

• Columbia University, Broadway & W 116th St

individuals had procured, including the following post on November 1:

36. A review of the Counterfeit Magazine itself reveals that it is a complete,

professionally reprinted reproduction of the October issue of Vogue, with unauthorized

adaptations made in service of promoting Defendants’ Album.1

37. Some pages have no modifications, constituting an exact reproduction of Condé

it is anything other than the cover of an authentic Vogue issue.

THE RESULTING PUBLIC DECEPTION AND CONFUSION

issued, including the following (attached collectively as Exhibit G):

• HipHopDX4 posted an article titled DRAKE & 21 SAVAGE COVER ‘VOGUE’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Vogue_(US)_cover_models#2022) was updated to further

on an authentic issue of Vogue magazine:

and social media posts, including the following:

• “Looking forward to picking this one up! @voguemagazine”

• “FINALLY OMG!!! like bffr...A FASHION ICON”

• “Something is telling me this will be a classic”

• “Excited to read what they say about the project”

• “It’s real. Also magazines can have multiple covers”

DEFENDANTS’ CONTINUING VIOLATION OF CONDÉ NAST’S RIGHTS