L’Oreal Vs nkd. The full story

Background and Context

L’Oreal is one of the biggest companies in the world and is the world’s largest cosmetics and personal care company.

At the time of writing this article (Spring 2025), L’Oreal is valued at more than US$250 billion dollars. More than a third of L’Oreal is still owned by the granddaughter of L’Oreal’s founder, Françoise Bettencourt Meyers, and her family. On 29th December 2023 it was reported that Bettencourt Meyers had become the first woman to ever amass a US$100 billion dollar fortune, making her the 12th richest person in the world at that time.

On that same day, I was preparing to shut the doors for the final time on my once thriving and successful Nottingham city centre waxing salon, which I’d spent the previous 14 years building up. Although I’m not attributing the painful and traumatic 30^th December 2023 closure of nkd waxing Nottingham to any single factor, the ongoing personal and financial distress caused to me by L’Oreal during the previous 15 months was without doubt the biggest contributor to the incredibly difficult decision I felt I had no choice but to make at that time.

nkd 2009 - 2022

nkd began life as a specialist waxing salon in Nottingham city centre back in 2009 with a particular focus on the delicate (and in-demand) art of intimate waxing.

Read my founder story here, including why I opened a waxing salon when I had no prior beauty industry experience, training or qualifications.

Right from the start, we took care to create a unique &  bold brand, and brand identity, all of our own. In fact, having such a distinctive and recognisable brand (but also one that was cheeky, subtle and never crass) was an important part of my wider business plan and ever since then, I’ve continued to develop and evolve the nkd brand with huge amounts of passion, love and investment. We’ve had great fun with the original nkd ( ) branding over the years, and to this day, people still “see” and understand elements of our original logo which they had never previously understood the meaning of.

In that same year that we opened, I successfully trade marked the name nkd ( ) in the area of beauty salons and beauty therapy services (Class 44).

The following decade was a busy one. I grew and developed the business locally at the same time as growing my young family which, as any business-owning parent of small children will identity with, wasn’t easy. So when we celebrated 10 years of trading in Nottingham in December 2019, being able to celebrate in our busy and successful salon with a dedicated team of employees and an army of loyal customers meant a lot, given how statistically few startup businesses ever reach this milestone.

By that time, we were also running a second salon in Leicester city centre, had a training arm of our business which taught other beauty therapists how to wax like experts and were multi award-winning. Although small business life is never easy, it was rewarding and it felt like we were achieving success.

Like all trade marks in the UK, mine naturally expired after 10 years. Unfortunately, I missed the window in which I could automatically renew/roll it over, which I can only blame on my business naivety  at the time (I didn’t fully understand how the UK trade mark system worked) and  a level of disorganisation caused by the demands of small business ownership and family life. That’s a mistake which I take full responsibility for.

The Covid Years

And then the pandemic happened. The sudden arrival of covid-19 threw us all into chaos and renewing the mark fell off my to do list altogether.

Keeping a forcibly shut business open at the same time as homeschooling my young children through the various lockdowns was horrible at times. Although if there were any silver linings to it, it was that it really cemented the bond between me, nkd and our devoted customer base and created some outstanding levels of customer loyalty, as I shared regular, candid and very personal updates with my mailing list about the challenges we faced.

Despite the optimism and naïve misapprehension that things would just go back to normal once the final lockdown had finished in April 2021, it turned out that the years immediately after covid were almost as testing as the pandemic itself. Like all small businesses, we battled a  massive recruitment crisis, with deteriorating mental health of our predominantly young, female workforce, with rising costs with the added stress of repaying covid debts (including rent arrears and bounceback loans), plus all the other challenges that have engulfed our high streets and SME communities in recent years.

2022 Onwards

In 2022, I finally got round to reapplying for my trade marks. Only this time, I wasn’t just applying for Class 44 (beauty salons and services), I was also applying to register the marks in Class 3 (which includes cosmetics and beauty products). This is because in the intervening period, I had also developed a range of waxing aftercare products, designed to soothe and calm skin and keep it lump and bump free after waxing, shaving, epilating and all other forms of hair removal. For many years, on the back of what we had succeeded in creating with nkd, various onlookers, stakeholders and business supporters & mentors of mine had commented how well the nkd brand would lend itself to products and that the addition of a product brand would be a great natural extension of the business and a great way of strengthening it. The creation and development of my products had given me something positive to focus on amongst the rest of the stress and strife of those few years.

Working closely with my long-term graphic designer, who I’ve been collaborating with since the inception of nkd in 2009 (and who I must give full credit to for his creative excellence over the last decade and a half) we also took the creation of our new product range as an opportunity to revisit the nkd branding and bring it up to date, which included a repositioning of our nkd brackets and the addition of new brand colours and other elements. While very different from the original nkd ( ) branding, the look and feel of the new (nkd) was certainly no less distinctive or identifiable.

“Free-riding on the Reputation and Goodwill” of Others?

So that was life up until September 2022 – the month when I received a letter of objection from L’Oreal to the attempted registration of my nkd/nkd ( ) trade marks.

I now know that L’Oreal is one of the world’s most prolific filers of trade mark applications, and has been ranked on more than one occasion as filing more trade mark applications than any other company in the world. It also has a reputation for being notoriously (and some might say overly-aggressively) protective about its Intellectual Property (IP).

L’Oreal’s objections centred around its NAKED-branded eyeshadow palettes and a small amount of other make up (e.g. a foundation and concealer) which are sold under the L’Oreal-owned Urban Decay make-up brand.

 Other assertions in its letter of objection included that:

• The nkd and NAKED marks are “confusingly similar”
• The goods and services we both deal in are “identical and similar”
• My use of these marks… “would therefore result in a likelihood of consumer confusion”, which would allow nkd to “free-ride” on L’Oreal’s “reputation and goodwill” which would also be “detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of the L’Oreal trade mark”
  

Based on its interpretation of the facts, L’Oreal proposed, in its first letter to me, that I should:

• “voluntarily withdraw” all of my trademark applications
• Agree to change my company name and branding so that I could no longer trade under nkd at all – not even in the salons - as I had done since 2009.

 As you might imagine, my own interpretation of the details of this case was somewhat different to L’Oreal’s and I was stunned at the suggestion that I should rebrand my established and reputable salons, after 13 years of trading, due to some eyeshadow palettes which bore a different name.

And contrary to L’Oreal’s suggestion, I had in fact “conducted the appropriate legal checks before selecting [my] trademark.

At the point of re-applying for my nkd trademarks, I had searched the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO)’s database for competitor trademarks to ensure that I wasn’t infringing on anyone else’s IP. L’Oreal’s NAKED marks did not show up in this search because, of course, our two brand names are spelt differently and are different words (they are also pronounced differently - nkd has always been pronounced and known as “en-kay-dee” and never as naked).

Other facts, as I saw them, included:

• By then, I had been trading as nkd ( ) for 13 years without any issue from anyone. In all my years of being operationally involved in the business, not once had I been made aware of any incidents of consumer confusion between the two brands.
• I had already had the nkd ( ) name successfully trademarked in Class 44 for 10 years. Whatever L’Oreal’s issue with the crossover of nkd and NAKED products was, there was never any need to draw my Class 44 trademark applications into this and try and stop my longstanding waxing salons from continuing to trade as nkd.
• I’ve always and only ever done waxing and hair removal and the related aftercare, and NAKED has always and only ever been applied to eyeshadow palettes and a tiny amount of other make up. Thus we have always operated in totally different segments of the humungous beauty market.
• Each brand had its own unique and separate brand identity
• nkd was established in the UK (in 2009) before the Urban Decay make up brand was even launched in this country (in 2010).

The Lawyers Get Involved

On the back of this knowledge, I sought legal advice. I was advised that despite the clear and obvious differences in the two brand names and the other factors mentioned above, it would still have been commercially prudent of me to have excluded make up, or specific make up items (such as eyeshadow) from my Class 3 trademark specifications, just to err on the side of caution. My failure to have done this at the outset is another commercial mistake which I own.

That notwithstanding, my lawyers at the time said that it shouldn’t be a big job to reach a co-existence agreement which would allow L’Oreal to continue using its NAKED marks in the way it had always used them and allow nkd to live on as nkd in our own very tight sphere of waxing and hair removal. The lawyers’ view was that some simple tightening up of my own trademark specifications was all that was needed for either party never to step on the others’ toes.

This advice gave me the confidence to enter into negotiations with L’Oreal to try and reach a quick agreement. Our first letter back to them spelt out my business situation and background and current stance on this matter, while offering to amend our trademark specification to better reflect nkd’s focus on “toiletries associated with personal care and hair removal products only”. Crucially, this letter also made it clear that we had no commercial interest whatsoever in make-up.

 

What followed was months (which has subsequently turned into years) of trying to reach a compromise with L’Oreal, which I originally mistakenly believed could have been so easily arrived at, were I simply to agree to exclude any references to make up (which I did agree to from the outset).

To date (Spring 2025) the direct financial cost to me of these legal proceedings has exceeded £30,000 + VAT. The indirect financial costs rack up to so much more, when considering:

 

• The cost of the legals and other expenses (both of which were substantial) involved with prematurely closing my Nottingham waxing salon before the end of my commercial lease
• The long-term loss of earnings from that once successful and thriving business which if it weren’t for all this may still have been growing, evolving and expanding as we had done in the previous 14 years
• The wider opportunity cost with the remaining nkd business as it currently stands (including my Leicester city centre waxing and beauty salon which is still very much open for the business, as well as the growth and development of my hair removal aftercare product range). By opportunity cost, I refer to what I could have potentially achieved with the remaining business over the last 2 years were it not for the distractions and drain on my energy, time and finances that L’Oreal has caused.

Of course, the broader personal impact and emotional toll that this has taken on me and my family over the last 2 ½ years (and counting) is even harder to quantity than the different financial aspects.

Standard Trade Mark Protection or Corporate Bullying?

There’s far too much legal correspondence to continue dissecting in this level of detail but I hope I’ve succeeded in sharing a sense of the injustice I feel.

Other aspects of the dispute which I believe are worthy of attention and that L’Oreal should be publicly called out (or some may say named and shamed) for include:

• The repeated, excessive and damaging delays incurred as a direct result of what I believe to be deliberate and very strategic delaying tactics by L’Oreal.

 

• L’Oreal has form in this area and that this not the first time it’s been called out for being greedy or overly-aggressive with its NAKED trademarks. In 2017, 2,135 people signed a petition to Stop L’Oreal from damaging local, small business after the company mounted a challenge against a Scottish Soap and Bath Bomb manufacturer also called NAKED. That Scottish Bath Bomb company is no longer trading.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-l-oreal-from-damaging-local-small-business

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-41349809

• L’Oreal is guilty of Expansive Trade Marking and Monopolistic Behaviours. Expansive trade marking is the practice of companies registering their trade marks for goods which they have no genuine commercial interest in, or within trade mark classes which are far too wide. This practice shouldn’t be allowed under UK trade mark law, which states that companies should be able to prove use of their trade marks in those categories they’re registered for. Although L’Oreal only applies the NAKED mark to a small collection of eyeshadows and a handful of other make up products (and has done since the Urban Decay make up brand was launched in the UK in 2010), the products it has included under the scope of its various NAKED trade marks stretch as far as cotton wool, body lotions, baby oils, deodorants, anti-perspirants, talcum powder, shaving and aftershave skin preparations, sun tanning preparations, fake tan preparations and nail polish removers.

It’s very hard to view L’Oreal’s attempts to stop me registering my products within the trade mark categories they clearly sit, despite L’Oreal having no NAKED products of its own that sit in the same categories as anything other than an attempt to restrict competition. Which is exactly the kind of behaviour that its own code of ethics says it doesn’t do.

 

 

• L'Oreal is trying to lay claim to something which isn’t even theirs. An enormous source of frustration for me all along has been the fact that L’Oreal can’t even claim complete ownership of the word NAKED in the wider cosmetics and make up categories, due to the prevalence of this term in the wider cosmetics world. A search of the IPO’s trade mark database for other Class 3 trade marks which contain the word naked throws up a long list of results. These can be viewed in this article along with the plethora of other “naked” branded cosmetic products already available to buy in the UK, all of which are far more similar to the use of L’Oreal’s actual use of NAKED than nkd’s hair removal aftercare products.

 

• The extent to which L’Oreal is breaching its own ethical principles. Aptly called “The Way we Act”, L’Oreal’s 54-page Code of Ethics can be found on its website under the “media projects” section.

L’Oreal Media Project - Code of Ethics - The Way we Act

This 54-page document, which is available to download in no less than 30 different languages, includes the following statements of propaganda:

• “Ethics is at the heart of [L’Oreal’s] purpose and of everything we do and how we do it. The way we act and the choices we make as individuals and as a Group define us and are the tangible embodiment of our Ethical Principles”, states the company.
• “We need to set a good example,” it also says. “We will treat our competitors with respect, as we would like them to treat us.”

 

Where are we Now?

In terms of where I am now with this case (correct as of Spring 2025).

• After the end of our “cooling off period” in late 2023, both parties were required in 2024 to submit witness statements as part of the next stage of this process. My witness statement was delivered on time and within the UK IPO’s maximum document length. L’Oreal required a month’s extension to the deadline due to lack of time in the previous 2 months to prepare and submit theirs. When it was finally submitted, it exceeded the maximum length allowed by the IPO by 30 pages.
• Since then, we have been waiting for the UK IPO to set a hearing date. In January 2025, I was advised that a hearing would take place the following month - some time in February 2025. However, by the start of February 2025, no firm date had been set and I was advised of delays, emanating from the UK IPO. The Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys is apparently seeking an urgent meeting with the UK IPO to try and deal with the issue of the delayed hearings.
• Even when a hearing date is set, the UK IPO is still likely to require another 8 – 12 months to hand their decision down. This would see this dispute stretching as far as spring 2026.

Summary - Not even make up can cover L’Oreal’s lies

I hope I have managed to demonstrate that the stance that L’Oreal’s legal team has taken during the course of this protracted and expensive trademark dispute has been unnecessarily aggressive and heavy handed. Although I fully understand the need of any company to protect its intellectual property – indeed I am protective of my own brand, given the love, passion and care that has been poured into it over the last 15 years – no single entity – not even the giant that is L’Oreal – can (nor should be able to) lay claim to a single word across such a huge market and industry, let alone derivatives and other versions of that word. 

L'Oreal's unreasonable and unnecessary actions have had a devastating impact on my business and I continue to suffer personally as a result of them.

L'Oreal claims to be "feminine and feminist" and to "empower every woman". This is just another one of its lies.

And although I’ve come to understand is that this isn’t actually about L’Oreal Vs nkd, this is of little consolation to me now. The reality is that this could be a story about any one of the big businesses who routinely throw their weight around in an overtly aggressive and heavy-handed manner with the little guys – because they can. I believe that what we’ve seen with L’Oreal Vs nkd is a classic case of corporate bullying, the likes of which has happened many times before to lots of small and medium size businesses, and which will continue to happen, unless these multinational giants are somehow reigned in – or called out publicly and named and shamed, as I have decided to try and do. 

Finally, I would like to point out that at any time still, L'Oreal could choose to do the ethical thing by me and my small business by taking measures to right their wrongs of the last 2 1/2 years. I firmly believe that the only chance I have of them doing this is if they are publicly shamed into doing so.

Thank you for listening to my story
Rebecca Dowdeswell
Founder and Owner of nkd