Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------X GRACE ELIZABETH HARRY CABE, 21-cv-6300 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT -Against-

REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, and , INC.

Defendants, ------X Plaintiff, Grace Elizabeth Harry Cabe, by her attorneys, EDWARD C. GREENBERG,

LLC, for her complaint alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff GRACE ELIZABETH HARRY CABE is a professional , known professionally as “Grace Elizabeth” who resides, is domiciled, and works as a professional model, in the State of New York, County of Kings.

2. That defendant REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION

(hereinafter “RCPC”) is a foreign business corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is authorized to and does regularly does business in the State and

County of New York with an address at One New York Plaza, New York, New York 10004

3. That defendant REVLON, INC. (hereinafter “RI”) is a foreign business corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is authorized to and does regularly does business in the State and County of New York with an address at One New York

Plaza, New York, New York 10004.

JURISDICTION

4. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 15 U.S.C. §1121(a).

1 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 2 of 19

5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) as defendants are located in and reside in the county and State of New York.

6. Venue is further proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein, inclusive of those relevant to claims under the New York Civil Rights Law § 50, 51, occurred in this State and this District.

FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS

7. Plaintiff’s career is centered in the City and State of New York.

8. Plaintiff is domiciled in the City and State of New York.

9. Plaintiff is represented by the model management company, Next Management,

LLC, which is located in the City, State and County of New York.

10. Plaintiff is well known in and to the modeling industry.

11. Plaintiff’s image, identity and persona identity have been exposed and are known to the general public.

12. Plaintiff is a highly successful .

13. CABE is a top earning fashion and commercial model.

14. Plaintiff is internationally recognized and has been featured on at least 38 magazine covers, including Vogue in Brazil, China, Spain, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Paris,

Russia and Turkey.

15. Examples of some of plaintiff’s modeling work, as published by her manager on nextmanagement.com, is annexed hereto at Exhibit “A.”

16. Plaintiff’s name and image have been included in publications, among others, such as Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, V, Rika, The Daily Front Row, and Elle Magazine.

2 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 3 of 19

17. Plaintiff is known and recognized throughout the World including in the United

States, China, Italy, Argentina, Mexico, Paris, the United Kingdom, Russia, Korea, Switzerland and elsewhere.

18. Plaintiff has worked with top fashion brands including , Versace, Fendi, and

Alberta Feretti, , Carolina Herrera, Polo , among many others.

19. At the time of this writing, plaintiff is under an exclusive contract with Estee

Lauder for makeup, skincare and fragrance products.

20. Estee Lauder is a Fortune 500 beauty brand.

21. Plaintiff has been associated with Estee Lauder at all relevant times herein.

22. Plaintiff has previously served as a spokesperson for Victoria’s Secret’s PINK label.

23. Plaintiff’s image and identity have been exposed to the general public on television via at least the Victoria’s Secret for three consecutive years.

24. In 2019, Plaintiff became a Victoria’s Secret Angel.

25. Plaintiff has been associated with Victoria’s Secret at all relevant times herein.

26. Plaintiff has worked with some of the fashion industry’s top photographers, including without limitation, and .

27. Plaintiff was previously featured on Models.com’s “Hot List”.

28. Plaintiff is currently ranked by Models.com as one of the “Top 50” models in the world.

29. Plaintiff is currently ranked by Models.com as one of the “Money Girls” under the

“Contract Girls” category.

3 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 4 of 19

30. Plaintiff has one of the top ranked Instagram accounts in the world among models of all time, coming in at #103 for widest social media reach, according to Models.com, with over

1,200,000 Instagram followers.

31. At the time of this writing, plaintiff has more Instagram followers than Kate, Moss, former REVLON models and Iman Abdulmajid, and 2018 REVLON models

Imaan Hammam and Adwoa Aboah.

32. Plaintiff is represented by Next Management in New York, Paris, Milan, London,

Los Angeles, Miami, and is represented by MIKAs in Stockholm, Sweden.

33. The strength of Plaintiff’s image and persona is centered in New York, where plaintiff’s modeling career is centered.

34. Plaintiff has derived income from professional modeling.

35. Plaintiff’s career as a professional model is dependent on her name, reputation and physical appearance.

36. Plaintiff’s income is based upon her image, persona, face and physical attributes and how such image may serve to promote or advertise the sale of products or services.

37. Plaintiff has earned considerable sums in exchange for the use of her image, portrait, likeness or name in connection with the sale or promotion of products or services with which plaintiff has elected to associate herself with on terms and conditions agreeable to her.

38. Plaintiff’s image, portrait and likeness has been used in connection with the advertising and sale of products in the United States and internationally.

39. Plaintiff’s image has a proven value and selling power.

40. Plaintiff is a worldwide celebrity.

4 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 5 of 19

41. Plaintiff has been the subject of articles in the worldwide media, in which her professional and personal life have been covered extensively.

42. Copies of some articles about plaintiff are annexed hereto at Exhibit “B.”

43. Upon information and belief, RI and RCPC appear to be inextricably intertwined such that it is difficult to tell which entity is acting and performing which actions at a given time and as such both are hereinafter referred to collectively and individually as “REVLON”.

44. REVLON is, according to its website revlonic.com, “a leading global beauty company with a portfolio of iconic brands that transform the lives of women and men around the world.”

45. According to revlonic.com, Revlon “manufactures and markets color , hair color and care, skincare, beauty care and fragrances through a diverse portfolio of 15+ brands sold in more than 150 countries.

46. REVLON’s portfolio of brands includes “Revlon”, , Almay,

American Crew, CND, , SinfulColors, , Britney Spears Fragrances, Christina

Aguilera Fragrances, The Elizabeth Taylor Frangrance Collection, john varvatos, AllSaints, Juicy

Couture, Alfred Sung, , Crème of Nature, Curve, D:fi, Ed Hardy, Eksperience, flesh,

Gatineau, Giorgio Beverly Hills, Grey Flannel Geoffrey Beene, , Intercosmo, Jean Nate,

Jennifer Aniston, Lucky Brand, Mariah Carey, Natural Honey, Roflu Do, Pure Ice, WildFox.

THE UNAUTHORIZED USES OF PLAINTIFF’S IMAGE

47. On April 13, 2020, REVLON published an image of Plaintiff to its Instagram page in order to promote, market and brand REVLON products, including without limitation, Revlon

5 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 6 of 19

Skinlights Prismatic Bronzer (a copy of one of such uses is annexed at the end of Exhibits “C” and

“D” hereto).

48. Upon information and belief, the uses of Plaintiff’s image by REVLON go well beyond the screen capture annexed within Exhibits “C” and “D” hereto.

49. On April 13, 2020, REVLON published an image of Plaintiff to its Facebook page in order to promote, market and brand REVLON products, including without limitation, Revlon

Skinlights Pismatic Bronzer in various shades

50. Upon information and belief, REVLON’s publications of Plaintiff’s image and likeness on social media included links to purchase REVLON products.

51. Upon information and belief, REVLON published Plaintiff’s Image elsewhere in the World to promote, market and brand REVLON products, including without limitation Revlon

SkinLights Prismatic Bronzer in various shades.

52. Upon information and belief, other publications by REVLON of Plaintiff’s image and likeness include links to purchase REVLON products.

53. Upon information and belief, REVLON’s publications of Plaintiff’s image and likeness further promoted REVLON products other than Revlon SkinLights Prismatic Bronzer.

54. Upon information and belief, REVLON made additional publications of plaintiff’s image to promote REVLON and its products on different dates, and on different and additional social media accounts.

55. REVLON’s uses of plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona and/or name falsely imply that plaintiff is wearing Revlon makeup.

56. The image of Plaintiff used by REVLON was originally created by photographer

Michael Schwartz for a January 2017 editorial in Vogue Mexico.

6 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 7 of 19

57. Upon information and belief, in the image of Plaintiff used by REVLON, plaintiff is not wearing the advertised “Revlon” brand products.

58. Upon information and belief, in the image of Plaintiff used by REVLON, plaintiff is not wearing any “Revlon” brand products.

59. Upon information and belief, in the image of Plaintiff used by REVLON, plaintiff is wearing Marc Jacobs Beauty Dew Drops Coconut Gel .

60. Upon information and belief, REVLON is a competitor of Marc Jacobs Beauty.

61. At no time did REVLON seek or obtain the prior written consent from Plaintiff for the complained use of her image.

62. REVLON previously sought the use of Plaintiff’s image in connection with its 2018

“Live Boldly” campaign.

63. Plaintiff declined Revlon’s offer to enter into an agreement with it for the 2018 year.

64. Plaintiff declined Revlon’s very substantial monetary offer to Plaintiff, set by

Revlon itself.

65. Without solicitation by Plaintiff or anyone on her behalf, REVLON sent a written offer sheet to plaintiff via her manager.

66. Plaintiff rejected the sums and terms offered by Revlon.

67. Plaintiff entered into an exclusive contract with Estee Lauder, effective as of

November 22, 2017.

68. Upon information and belief, REVLON is a competitor of Estee Lauder.

69. Upon information and belief, REVLON knew that plaintiff was at all relevant times herein the brand spokesperson for Estee Lauder.

7 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 8 of 19

70. Notwithstanding that Revlon previously sought the use of Plaintiff’s image for modeling services, and plaintiff declined, Revlon used her image anyway.

71. Notwithstanding the rejection by plaintiff and worldwide use of plaintiff’s image by

Estee Lauder, REVLON violated, inter alia, the New York Civil Rights Law and the Lanham Act.

72. REVLON never sought or obtained plaintiff’s authorization or consent to use her image as complained of herein.

73. REVLON is a sophisticated licensor and licensee of intellectual property and knew that a model release was required to use a person’s name or image or likeness for trade, advertising or commercial purposes.

74. REVLON employs on a regular basis attorneys and others sophisticated in the fields of copyrights, consent, licenses, releases and applicable state and federal laws and statutes.

75. Upon information and belief, since the 1960s and continuing to at least 2021,

Revlon has had a policy of placing its models, celebrities and spokespeople under written contracts consistent with the offer sheet rejected by plaintiff.

76. REVLON hires models to market and promote its products and brand.

77. Upon information and belief, REVLON has obtained written permission to employ the face, image, portrait, photo or likeness, in conformity with, inter alia, the New York Civil

Rights Law and The Lanham Act, of the following models: Candice Bergen, Evelyn Kuhn,

Christie Brinkley, Shelley Hack, Veronica Hamel, , Cybill Shephard, Kim Bassinger,

Liza Manelli, , , .

78. Upon information and belief, Revlon has had procedures and protocols in place for over 60 years for securing publicity/privacy rights of persons used to brand, promote, market, advertise and sell its products.

8 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 9 of 19

79. Notwithstanding some six decades of practice, and entering into such contracts with approximately 100 models and/or celebrities, Revlon ignored its own protocols and used plaintiff’s image, despite her rejection of working with Revlon.

80. Beauty companies such as Revlon are often defined by their spokesmodels.

81. REVLON is closely associated with the models it uses in its advertisements.

82. REVLON includes on its website revloninc.com, under “Company History”, a 120- year span timeline that lists its major company milestones, focusing inter alia, on the campaigns it has run and the models it has signed.

83. REVLON’s uses of Plaintiff’s image are knowing.

84. Plaintiff is readily identifiable in the image that is the subject of this action.

85. Plaintiff is well-known for her features, which are clearly visible in the subject photograph of Grace Elizabeth.

86. The image of plaintiff used by Revlon is visible on multiple “fan websites” and “fan pages” dedicated to Plaintiff by her name “Grace Elizabeth”.

87. Upon information and belief, REVLON published Plaintiff’s image on its Facebook and Instagram page(s) in order to promote REVLON.

88. Upon information and belief, REVLON published Plaintiff’s image on its Facebook and Instagram page(s) in order to promote the sale of REVLON’s products.

89. The uses of Plaintiff’s image by REVLON as complained of herein were for trade, advertising and commercial purposes.

90. Neither Plaintiff, nor her manager, authorized REVLON to use her image or likeness to market, promote or advertise the sale of REVLON products.

9 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 10 of 19

91. At the time of the subject unauthorized uses of plaintiff’s image by REVLON,

Plaintiff was under an exclusive contract with Estee Lauder, which prohibited her from modeling for another beauty or skincare brand, such as REVLON.

92. REVLON’s uses of Plaintiff’s image were in contravention with the exclusive terms of plaintiff’s agreement with Estee Lauder.

93. REVLON’s actions as complained of herein served to threaten the contractual relationship between plaintiff and Estee Lauder.

94. Plaintiff never granted Revlon permission to use her image or likeness for any purpose whatsoever.

95. Had REVLON sought to use Plaintiff’s image for the use complained of herein,

Plaintiff would have declined such request.

96. Plaintiff never consented to endorse, promote, advertise or otherwise be associated with REVLON or REVLON’s products.

97. REVLON’s uses of plaintiff’s image as complained of herein create confusion regarding Plaintiff’s endorsement of REVLON and REVLON’s products.

98. REVLON’s uses of plaintiff’s image as complained of herein create confusion regarding the makeup worn by Plaintiff in the image published by REVLON.

99. REVLON’s uses of plaintiff’s image as complained of herein create confusion regarding Plaintiff’s business relationship with Revlon or Estee Lauder.

100. REVLON’s uses of plaintiff’s image imply to the consumer that Plaintiff has agreed to Model for Revlon and endorse its products.

101. Plaintiff has not agreed to model for Revlon or endorse its products.

10 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 11 of 19

102. Plaintiff has been under an exclusive contract with Estee Lauder since 2018 and up to and including the date of this Agreement.

103. REVLON did not obtain the requisite written consent of Plaintiff, or anyone with legal authority to act on her behalf, prior to Revlon’s uses of Plaintiff’s image as complained of herein.

104. The complained of uses of Plaintiff’s image and likeness by REVLON were calculated intended to, and upon information and belief, did in fact, bestow upon REVLON an economic advantage by inter alia, promoting and generating sales of products.

105. REVLON further benefited by implying to its consumers and members that it had secured the rights use Plaintiff’s image and that she left Estee Lauder to work for Revlon.

106. The unauthorized use of each of Plaintiff’s image, likeness and/or name by

REVLON occurred in the State of New York, other states in the United States and elsewhere in the

World where its consumers are located.

ADDITIONAL FACTS RELEVENT TO ALL CLAIMS

107. On September 7, 2020, Plaintiff’s manager, Next Management, LLC, via its in house counsel, Mr. Alan Kannof, issued and delivered a notice and demand letter to REVLON

(hereinafter the “REVLON First Notice Letter”, a copy of which is annexed hereto at Exhibit “C”.

108. The REVLON First Notice Letter informed REVLON of the unauthorized uses of

Plaintiff’s image, likeness and demanded, inter alia, that it cease and desist all such uses of same and provide plaintiff with information regarding such uses so that Plaintiff could in good faith formulate a reasonable settlement demand to compensate her for the unauthorized uses, without the need for judicial intervention.

11 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 12 of 19

109. REVLON, via its in-house counsel, corresponded with Mr. Kannof; however, the matter was not resolved and so Plaintiff and her manager referred the matter to the undersigned litigation counsel.

110. Plaintiff, by counsel issued and delivered a notice and demand letter to REVLON dated March 30, 2021 (hereinafter the “REVLON Second Notice Letter”, a copy of which is annexed hereto at Exhibit “D”).

111. The REVLON Second Notice Letter informed REVLON of the unauthorized uses of Plaintiff’s image, likeness and demanded, inter alia, that it cease and desist all such uses of same and provide plaintiff with information regarding such uses so that Plaintiff could in good faith formulate a reasonable settlement demand to compensate her for the unauthorized uses, without the need for judicial intervention.

112. Revlon, via its counsel, Davis & Gilbert LLP, responded to the Second Notice

Letter.

113. The parties, via their counsel, entered into a tolling agreement, to toll all applicable statutes of limitations for a period of 90 days, effective as of April 2, 2021.

114. The parties, via their counsel, engaged in limited settlement communications but have been unable to resolve the matter.

115. Defendants are sophisticated licensors and licensees of intellectual property and know that it must obtain the rights to intellectual property created by third parties and the model(s) depicted in said works prior to their commercial, promotional or advertising use of same.

116. At all times relevant herein, REVLON was aware, and fully knowledgeable, that its uses of Plaintiff’s image and likeness were in violation of state and/or federal law.

12 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 13 of 19

117. REVLON knew or should have known and been familiar with the applicable laws and statutes at issue herein.

118. REVLON failed to adhere to the procedures and protocols necessary for it to obtain the rights to use Plaintiff’s image and likeness prior to its uses of same.

119. REVLON has commercially benefited from its uses of Plaintiff’s image and likeness.

120. REVLON has failed to provide any compensation to Plaintiff for REVLON’s uses of plaintiff’s image and likeness.

121. The full nature and extent of all of REVLON’s unauthorized uses of Plaintiff’s image, likeness, and/or name are unknown to Plaintiff as of this writing, said information being within the sole knowledge, custody, and control of REVLON.

122. That such details and information are expected to be ascertained through discovery in this action.

123. Pursuant to Federal Rule 11, Plaintiff has sought to obviate judicial intervention and filing of suit.

124. REVLON has no defenses at law to the claims set forth herein.

125. Upon information and belief, REVLON is not in possession of any exculpatory document although having been duly demanded to produce same.

126. On March 20, 2020, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed Executive Order 202.8, immediately tolling the statute of limitations for, inter alia, Plaintiff’s Claim under New York

Civil Rights Law, and that such tolling continued until that Executive Order and its extensions expired on November 3, 2020.

13 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 14 of 19

127. Paragraphs “1” through “126” are incorporated by reference with respect to each of the below claims for relief.

JURY DEMAND

128. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all issues.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS LAW §50 and §51

129. That the New York Civil Rights Law § 50 and 51 specifically proscribe the use of an individual’s name, portrait or picture for trade or advertising purposes, without the prior written consent of said individual.

130. The New York Civil Rights Law § 51 provides inter alia, that compensatory and exemplary damages are recoverable thereunder.

131. Section 50 of the New York Civil Rights Law evidences a strong public policy against such unauthorized use, defining any such offense as a misdemeanor.

132. Section 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law enumerates civil remedies available thereunder including but not limited to money damages in the form of compensatory and/or exemplary damages and injunctive relief.

133. REVLON’s uses of Plaintiff’s image, likeness and/or name are in direct violation of the New York Civil Rights Law § 50, 51 as there existed/exists no executed written consent to the specific uses complained of herein.

134. REVLON’s uses of Plaintiff’s image, likeness and/or name are in direct violation of the New York Civil Rights Law § 50, 51 as defendant(s) failed to possess an executed written consent prior to any use by REVLON of Plaintiff’s image, likeness and/or name.

14 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 15 of 19

135. REVLON had actual knowledge that it had no authorization, consent or license from Plaintiff to use her image, likeness and/or name for trade or advertising purposes.

136. Notwithstanding such knowledge, REVLON employed Plaintiff’s image, likeness, and/or name, knowingly, in violation of law.

137. As a result of the foregoing and pursuant to said statutes, Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to relief as per statute in the forms of compensatory damages, in a sum to be determined by this Court, plus punitive or exemplary damages in a sum ultimately to be determined by this Court, and costs and disbursements incurred by Plaintiff in the prosecution of this action, together with an Order from this Court permanently restraining the defendant(s) herein from utilizing the name, image or likeness of the PLAINTIFF(S) for any trade or advertising purposes.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF §43(a) OF THE LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. 1125)

138. Plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona and/or name has been used extensively and employed in international advertising campaigns for well-known products and marks.

139. Plaintiff is recognizable to the general public in at least the United States.

140. Plaintiff is recognizable to the typical consumer of REVLON.

141. Plaintiff is recognizable internationally in the states and countries in which

REVLON published her image.

142. REVLON’s uses of Plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona and/or name were aimed at

REVLON’s consumers and potential consumers in connection with REVLON’s products and services.

15 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 16 of 19

143. Plaintiff’s image, likeness and name have been employed in massive advertising campaigns seen in the same geographic areas as REVLON’s advertising and uses of Plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona and/or name as complained of herein.

144. The persons viewing the REVLON’s uses of Plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona and/or name are persons who are well aware of Plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona and/or name, and to whom plaintiff is recognizable.

145. REVLON intentionally traded on Plaintiff’s fame, beauty, reputation and talent as a model.

146. As a result of REVLON’s unauthorized uses of Plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona and/or name, Plaintiff is made to appear as if she is a “Revlon model”, works with REVLON and endorses the brand “Revlon” and its products.

147. At all times relevant herein, plaintiff was under an exclusive agreement with Estee

Lauder for makeup and skincare, such that REVLON’s uses of her image, if authorized, would have been in contravention to plaintiff’s agreement with Estee Lauder.

148. That such unauthorized, false, and misleading association of plaintiff with

REVLON is harmful to Plaintiff.

149. That such apparent, but false, endorsement is harmful to Plaintiff.

150. Plaintiff has not endorsed REVLON, and any representations of same are utterly false and misleading.

151. REVLON has used, in connection with Plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona, and/or name, the REVLON name and logo, both of which falsely and/or misleadingly represents that

Plaintiff and REVLON have a brand partnership and/or business relationship.

16 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 17 of 19

152. REVLON has used, in connection with Plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona, and/or name, the name of REVLON’s products including links to purchase same, which falsely and/or misleadingly represents that Plaintiff and REVLON have a partnership and/or business relationship and that plaintiff wears and endorses REVLON’s products.

153. The hereinabove stated uses of Plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona and/or name have expressly, implicitly, and/or negligently created a false impression of endorsement by

Plaintiff for REVLON’s consumer goods and services.

154. REVLON has caused Plaintiff to be falsely associated with REVLON’s brand.

155. REVLON has caused Plaintiff to be falsely associated with the sale of REVLON’s products.

156. The consumer public is likely to be, and has been, deceived and/or confused into thinking that products offered for sale by REVLON that are the subject herein were sponsored by, or associated with Plaintiff.

157. The consumer public is likely to be, and has been, deceived and/or confused into thinking that Plaintiff has sponsored or approved of REVLON.

158. The consumer public is likely to be, and has been, deceived and/or confused into thinking that Plaintiff and REVLON have a business arrangement and/or branding agreement with each other.

159. Plaintiff has been injured as a result of REVLON’s unauthorized uses of her image, likeness, persona and/or name.

160. The use of Plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona and/or name in connection with

REVLON’s commercial advertising or promotion as alleged herein, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of REVLON’s goods and services.

17 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 18 of 19

161. The use of Plaintiff’s image, likeness, persona and/or name in connection with

REVLON’s commercial advertising or promotion as alleged herein, misrepresents to the consumer public that plaintiff is wearing REVLON makeup in the subject image of Plaintiff.

162. That disinterested third parties may have relied on such misrepresentation in seeking to purchase products from REVLON.

163. That the foregoing false endorsements constitute violations of Section 43(a) of the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).

164. As a result of the foregoing and pursuant to said statutes, Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to relief as per statute under 15 U.S.C. §1117 and in the form of compensatory damages, in a sum to be determined by this Court, inclusive of defendant’s profits, any damages sustained by Plaintiff, costs and disbursements incurred by Plaintiff in the prosecution of this action, the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff in the prosecution of this action, together with an Order from this Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1116 permanently restraining REVLON from utilizing Plaintiff’s name, image, likeness or persona for commercial purposes absent possession of a signed, written model release prior to any such use.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant as follows:

ON THE FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF – an award of an amount ultimately to be determined by the court, inclusive of an award of compensatory damages, and exemplary damages with interest thereon, costs and disbursements, and a permanent injunction;

ON THE SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF– an award of an amount ultimately to be determined by the court, inclusive of an award of compensatory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

§1117(a) in the form of defendant’s profits, the damages sustained by the plaintiff, the costs and

18 Case 1:21-cv-06300 Document 1 Filed 07/24/21 Page 19 of 19

disbursements, as well as the reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant, and a permanent injunction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1116;

And an Order of injunction permanently enjoining and prohibiting defendant, including but not limited to wholly owned subsidiaries, from employing or utilizing in any manner or media whatsoever, including all future uses, sales, transfers, assignments, or licensing of any and all of products, advertisements, or any other publication, bearing the name, portrait, photograph, image likeness, or persona of Plaintiff, pursuant to The New York Civil Rights Law § 51, and/or The

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1116;

An award of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses associated with the prosecution of this matter;

And such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: White Plains, New York July 24, 2021 EDWARD C. GREENBERG, LLC

_s/Edward C. Greenberg (EG 5553)_____ By: Edward C. Greenberg (EG 5553) 10 City Place, Suite 19C White Plains, New York 10601 Tel: (914) 831-3344 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff

19