Justin Alexander sues Here Comes the Bride and Groom, alleging trademark counterfeiting and passing off of wedding dresses

The complaint

The complaint is Document 1, filed November 12, 2026, in Justin Alexander, Inc. v. Martinez, No. 3:26-cv-06439 (S.D. Cal.). It runs 28 pages and demands a jury trial. Justin Alexander, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Springfield, New Jersey. The complaint names an individual defendant and Here Comes the Bride and Groom, which it calls HCTB. It says Justin Alexander is informed and believes that Here Comes the Bride & Groom Bridal Boutique is a sole proprietorship operated by the individual defendant in San Diego, California, and that the individual defendant manages the store. It also names John Does 1 through 10: Does 4 through 10 are other parties not yet identified, and, on information and belief, Does 1 through 3 are manufacturers of counterfeit dresses. (Compl. paras. 15-19.) The docket lists the case as assigned to Judge Robert S. Huie.

The marks

The complaint identifies three registrations that it collectively calls Justin's Marks or Justin's Registrations, and it attaches copies as Exhibits 1 through 3. (Compl. paras. 26-28.) It lists the word mark JUSTIN ALEXANDER, U.S. Registration No. 4,018,784, obtained in August 2011 for wedding dresses and wedding gowns, and it states that Justin Alexander has used that mark in the bridal industry since 2001. It lists the word mark SINCERITY, U.S. Registration No. 4,011,847, also obtained in August 2011 for wedding dresses and wedding gowns, and it states that the mark has been used in the bridal industry since 1997. It lists the word mark LILLIAN WEST, U.S. Registration No. 4,417,935, obtained in 2013 for wedding gowns. USPTO records list all three as live standard-character registrations on the Principal Register, owned by Justin Alexander, Inc., a New Jersey corporation. Reg. No. 4,018,784 was registered August 30, 2011, from an application filed January 17, 2011; Class 25 remains active for wedding dresses and wedding gowns, with first use and use in commerce claimed from May 2001, and the registration has been renewed; a Class 18 identification for handbags is recorded as cancelled under Section 8. Reg. No. 4,011,847 was registered August 16, 2011, from an application filed January 14, 2011, for wedding dresses and wedding gowns in Class 25, with first use and use in commerce claimed from September 1997, and the registration has been renewed. Reg. No. 4,417,935 was registered October 15, 2013, from an application filed February 20, 2013, for gowns and wedding dresses in Class 25, with first use and use in commerce claimed from February 8, 2013, and the registration has been renewed.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint says a bride reported that HCTB showed her an authentic Justin Alexander sample gown with its labels intact, accepted $2,385 for an authentic gown in her size, and, eight months later and shortly before her wedding, delivered a low-quality imitation; Justin Alexander says it inspected the garment and confirmed inferior materials, construction, and labeling. (Compl. paras. 2-3, 32-39.) It says a second bride received an unlabeled gown that Justin Alexander inspected and confirmed was a counterfeit, and that a third bride was told her dress was in Justin Alexander's warehouse, a story the complaint calls a fabrication. (Compl. paras. 40-43.) It alleges that Justin Alexander sent a cease-and-desist letter on May 27, 2026, and that its counsel sent a letter on June 12, 2026, warning of liability for trademark infringement and counterfeiting. (Compl. paras. 44-45.) It alleges that, despite these warnings, the HCTB defendants have continued to willfully infringe in two ways: by displaying sample Justin Alexander gowns while misrepresenting that HCTB could source authentic gowns in a bride's size from Justin Alexander, from which the complaint alleges that the defendants have continued to sell counterfeit dresses sourced from unauthorized third parties; and by displaying at least two of Justin Alexander's top dresses with the labels removed as HCTB's own white-label dresses, at a price significantly higher than Justin Alexander's recommended sale price for boutique stores. (Compl. paras. 6-8.) It says a buyer Justin Alexander sent to the store on June 24, 2026, was shown an authentic Josette Gown with all labels removed and told it was the store's "private label" dress. (Compl. paras. 46-50.) It also alleges that HCTB's Instagram account published two Justin Alexander product images and used Justin Alexander marks in hashtags to claim falsely that it was affiliated with Justin Alexander, as part of what the complaint calls a bait-and-switch, and that the individual defendant orchestrated the sale of the counterfeit dress or dresses. (Compl. paras. 57-65.) It alleges that the defendants have refused to identify their suppliers or the number of counterfeit dresses sold. (Compl. paras. 9, 68-69.)

Claims and relief

The complaint pleads seven causes of action: trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114-1117 (First Cause of Action); trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (Second Cause of Action); false designation of origin and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Third Cause of Action); false advertising under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (Fourth Cause of Action); contributory and vicarious trademark infringement (Fifth Cause of Action); unfair competition (Sixth Cause of Action); and statutory unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 (Seventh Cause of Action). The prayer seeks temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief against using Justin Alexander's marks on merchandise that is not genuine, passing off, acts suggesting authorization, further infringement, unfair competition, and dealing in unauthorized inventory bearing the marks; a sworn compliance report within ten days after service of judgment; an accounting of profits, with damages for infringement increased by a sum not exceeding three times under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, or in the alternative statutory damages of $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods sold, offered for sale, or distributed under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2); delivery for destruction of products, labels, signs, packages, and advertisements bearing the marks under 15 U.S.C. § 1118; an order that the defendants identify all suppliers, manufacturers, and intermediaries from whom they obtained any dress represented or displayed as a Justin Alexander product, with the quantities obtained and sold; attorneys' fees; costs; and other relief. (Prayer.)