What’s In A Name? Bob Mackie and the Fight to Control One’s Name

Citation: JCPenney.com

INTRODUCTION 

When news broke late last month that Bob Mackie, the legendary fashion designer, and JCPenney, the large American chain retailer, were collaborating on a clothing collection called “Mackie: Bob Mackie,” many were surprised by the announcement–including the designer himself. 

Bob Mackie, famous fashion designer who has dressed the likes of Cher, Dua Lipa, Dolly Parton and most recently Taylor Swift for the cover of her “The Life of A Showgirl Album,” is claiming that he did not give the retailer authorization to use his name for their line of bedazzled dresses. Mackie filed two lawsuits in Manhattan federal court on October 30th, 2025, one against JCPenney and a related suit against the Bob Mackie Design Group (BMDG) alleging that neither had Mackie’s authorization to use Mackie’s name in association with the creation and promotion of the clothing line. 

What makes Mackie’s lawsuit against JCPenney and Bob Mackie Design Group interesting is that Bob Mackie himself, has a 40% ownership stake in the group, though he is claiming that the group does not have the authority to use his name on products. Mackie believes that JCPenney could have received permission with the Bob Mackie Design Group to create the collaboration, but that the group did not have the authority to agree to the use of the Bob Mackie name. Marc Sanchez, who is the President and 60% stakeholder in BMDG, claims that the group has full rights and authority to use Bob Mackie trademarks to license clothing collections, which is how the deal with JCPenney was entered into. 

LEGAL ISSUE IMPLICATED 

Mackie’s claims against the Bob Mackie Design Group and JCPenney over the “Mackie: Bob Mackie” collection include false advertising and false association under the Lanham Act. In addition, Mackie alleges violations under New York’s law against deceiving customers and California’s law against violations of publicly. 

False advertising and association claims both fall under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute. To establish a claim of false association under the Lanham Act, the plaintiff must prove that it has prior protectable rights in the mark and the defendant’s use of the similar mark is likely to cause confusion. Mackie is arguing that JCPenney licensing the name “Bob Mackie” could cause confusion for shoppers, who think that the fashion icon actually collaborated with and designed the pieces that JCPenney is selling. 

For Mackie’s false advertising claim, the Lanham Act specifies that a plaintiff must prove that an injury to a commercial interest, whether that be in sales or to a business’ reputation, was proximately caused by the defendant’s misrepresentations. JCPenney has heavily promoted the collection, so much so that major news outlets like the USA Today, People Magazine, and Page Six have written about the collection and inferring that Mackie himself is working with the major retailer. In his suit, Mackie claimed that he would never approve a clothing collection due to fear that the collaboration would “diminish his good name and will.” Mackie is known for creating exquisite designs, whose hallmarks feature intricate beading and embellishments on them. Having a line with a big box retailer mass produce designs that are supposed to evoke Mackie, “doesn’t reflect the work he has created over the years” according to a Mackie spokesperson. 

POTENTIAL BUSINESS IMPACT 

While the impact on Mackie’s business or JCPenney’s collaboration remains to be seen, Mackie’s concerns are not without merit. 

Due to the heavy media promotion that JCPenney has done to publicize the line, it is reasonable that Mackie could argue in his false association claim that consumer confusion would be rife. Furthermore, Mackie is alleging that the timing of this collaboration is anything but coincidence. JCPenney’s press release for the line specifically mentioned that Mackie brought “his quintessential sparkle to one of the year’s most anticipated albums.” This is referencing a Mackie-designed costume that Taylor Swift wore for one iteration of the cover of “The Life of A Showgirl.” Making this connection in their press release demonstrates how heavily JCPenney was relying on Mackie’s extensive body of work–both current and older–to promote the supposed "collaboration" between the two. This press release demonstrates JC Penney’s desire to “strike while the iron is hot” and grab a piece of the excitement and attention that Taylor Swift’s new album, and those affiliated with it, are currently receiving. 

It is reasonable that Mackie would be concerned that having a collaboration with a retailer like JCPenney, who is known for offering mass-market produced clothing at reasonable prices, would harm the reputation his business has for incredible, one of a kind intricate works. Releasing affordable lines with mass-market retailers as a high-end fashion designer has caused designer brands to suffer in the past, such as when famous fashion designer Hallston released his “Halston III” line with JCPenney. This collaboration led to the designer losing the rights to his name and severely damaging his business’ reputation of exclusivity and expert craftsmanship. Mackie referenced what happened to Halston as a reason for his concern about the collaboration in his complaint. 

CONCLUSION 

As brands and designers continue to grow and evolve over time, their need to protect their brand’s image and in turn, their name, remains critical. For a designer like Bob Mackie, who has a multi-decades body of work behind him, the need to protect the prestige of what he has created, and the name that the public recognises that body of work under, is paramount. 

For high end designers, the reward of increasing profit margins and bottom lines by producing mass market fashions comes with the risk of tarnishing the air of exclusivity, scarcity and uniqueness of the public’s perception of their brand. Part of the reason that makes brands like Dior, Gucci and The Row so desirable is the status symbol that comes with having something that not everyone can have-whether that barrier be financial or accessibility. If designers do want to have their cake and eat it too, the right course of action may be creating their own inhouse affordability line, like what Armani has with Armani Exchange, the brand’s more affordable and trendy product line. Armani gets to keep their perception of luxury and opulence with their couture and ready to wear lines, while bringing in customers seeking affordability and the designer name with Armani Exchange. This way, designers are not taking on the risk of their brand being associated with being inside mass market retailers. Customers will get the impression that they are purchasing with the luxury brand directly, while the brand is able to appeal to a greater swathe of consumers that were previously out of reach.