Supreme™ Court: 15 Reasons Why Supreme Is Suing Married to the Mob

Let's play a quick game of catch-up: Supreme is taking Married to the Mob to court over MTTM's use of the mark "Supreme Bitch." Today, we discovered that Supreme filed for a trademark for its own box logo in March of this year, but also has maintained the trademark for the "Supreme" brand since 2011. Now, we got our hands on Supreme's response to Married to the Mob's case, helmed by civil liberties lawyer Normal Siegel. Supreme's litigation is being handled by Brad D. Rose of Pryor Cashman, a law firm with a pretty cool list of clients. Which is probably the only time you will ever read that.

But seriously, does everything associated with Supreme have to be super cool?! Pryor Cashman's past clients include Bob Dylan and Duke Ellington. Meanwhile Rose's own clientele includes Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake, and Nas. So it's safe to say this isn't his first rodeo... wonder if he gets free Supreme gear? In any case, we dropped down and got our legal on and examined Supreme's arguments against McSweeney and Siegel's case. The plot thickens as we look at Supreme™ Court: 15 Reasons Why Supreme Is Suing Married to the Mob*.

*Technically, "Supreme's lawyers," because this whole thing reeks of legalese, and what kind of self-respecting cool person would want to muck around in torts all day?

1. James Jebbia thought that the "Supreme Bitch" T-shirts would be a one-time thing.

In 2004, Jebbia was under the impression that Leah McSweeney would produce these T-shirts as part of a limited-run, and then they'd be gone forever. This practice isn't necessarily new to streetwear, in fact, it's pretty much the business model it's built on: limited runs begets hype, hype begets demand, demand begets shit selling out instantly. Further, the suit alleges that the "Supreme Bitch" T-shirt was actually off the market for a while after its initial release.

2. The "Supreme Bitch" logo showed up again recently, but this time on a lot more than just T-shirts.

In December 2012, James Jebbia becomes aware of the re-release of "Supreme Bitch" gear, thanks to Rihanna, who wore a hat emblazoned with the mark in question.

3. McSweeney allegedly didn't seek Jebbia's approval re-release the T-shirt, nor expand the "Supreme Bitch" logo to other items.

This time, McSweeney re-released these products on her own. Everything from "a coffee mug, a knit hat, a cap, a mouse pad, and a beach towel" now bore the "Supreme Bitch" mark. Then Jebbia started getting questions as to whether or not this stuff was official Supreme gear. And on January 1, 2013, McSweeney applied for a trademark for "Supreme Bitch," and planned to sell it at Urban Outfitters and Karmaloop. So Jebbia did what any guy in his situation would do: ask McSweeney what the hell was going on. Given McSweeney and Jebbia's past dealings, things probably started off amicable. McSweeney allegedly assured Jebbia that she would "cease manufacturing and using the SUPREME BITCH Logo," and would keep him informed of her remaining inventory of "Supreme Bitch" stuff, per the document.

4. McSweeney attempted to trademark "Supreme Bitch" a second time in March 2013.

Instead of ceasing production as she allegedly told Jebbia, McSweeney instead tried to apply for the "Supreme Bitch" trademark again on March 1, 2013. This directly conflicts with Supreme's existing trademark from 2011, and is known by super-proper trademark law experts as "kind of a dick move." The document alleges Jebbia "didn't sit idly by for nearly a decade" but acted after he learned of the "Supreme Bitch" relaunch, and in reaction to McSweeney's repeated attempts to trademark "Supreme Bitch," after he had personally talked to her, sans lawyers.

5. Jebbia tried to play nice with McSweeney, and would even allow her to sell "Supreme Bitch" gear under a different logo.

Jebbia tried to not get the lawyers involved from the start. He allegedly gave McSweeney a chance to liquidate her remaining "Supreme Bitch" gear, but even continue to use the mark "Supreme Bitch," albeit with a design that was "distinguishable from the SUPREME Logo."

6. Married to the Mob isn't necessarily empowering women, and also, sex with a guy in a gorilla suit.

The document alleges that Married to the Mob "has in fact objectified and demeaned women" through marketing campaigns and apparel. They reference the Wet Dreams poster and T-shirt, where McSweeney is depicted having sex with "presumably a man" in a gorilla costume. The poster is from 2006's Shandi for the MTTM x Kaws Campaign, and was limited to 100 copies.

7. Married to the Mob has released gear that unironically perpetuates negative stereotypes about women, like that they'll supposedly have sex for Chanel.

MTTM has released gear that uses "shock value phrases that are not feminist but rather statements that objectify women and perpetuate negative stereotypes." Examples given are things that say "Want Me Hold Me F*ck Me Hate Me" and "Will F*ck for Chanel." More recently, MTTM offers this shirt saying "Good dick will imprison you."

8. Supreme admits it evokes well-known brands, but says the suit is in response to the re-release of "Supreme Bitch" merchandise, not that it exists in the first place.

Streetwear has always had a sense of self-awareness, "sampling" logos and branding with a wink and a nod rather than an attempt to confuse its brand for another, more well-known brand. Supreme acknowledges the transformative nature of its oeuvre by admitting "that it has used designs which have evoked certain brands well-known in American pop culture." But mainly, it denies that there was a "long delay" between the initial "Supreme Bitch" T-shirt and this court case, since the offending items in question were only re-introduced to the market about 2 years ago.

9. Married to the Mob has produced gear that promotes violence against women, has made clothes for men... and sex with a guy in a gorilla suit (again).

The case alleges that MTTM produced a men's shirt emblazoned with "Bitch Better Have My Money Not Some Not Half But All of My Cash," a phrase obviously paying homage to pimps and prostitutes. Another shirt read "Bitches Get Stitches," which is counterintuitive to MTTM's claim that they are "reclaiming" the term bitch. As the case puts it: "None of these examples reflects 'strength and assertiveness' of women but rather humiliation, degradation, and misogyny."

10. Supreme sells its clothes to women, and puts Kate Moss, Chloe Sevigny, and Lady Gaga on T-shirts. Ergo, "Grrl Power!"

Supreme claims that women buy and wear their clothes, which is very true. They also claim that their ads featuring the likes of Lady Gaga, Kate Moss, and Chloe Sevigny attest to this.

11. Supreme was "influenced" by Barbara Kruger, but claims to never have "appropriated" designs.

On the one hand, Supreme's logo is a flip of Kruger's artwork, but it could be interpreted that it's transformative in the sense that the brand took something catering to high art and that culture, and repurposed it in the world of skating. In fact, Supreme's artist decks do just that-despite their insane aftermarket prices, any kid can go into the shop or website and buy a piece of skateable art. It's also alleged that Kruger was in talks to actually do a deck with Supreme, which purportedly fell through because she wanted her art to go on the top of the board, not the bottom.

12. Supreme has made nice with folks whose intellectual properties it's allegedly aped (which is not a reference to having sex with a guy in a gorilla suit).

When third parties had objections to certain Supreme products, Supreme "promptly resolved those objections." The case claims that Supreme went on to develop an "ongoing cordial business relationship" with many of these companies. Companies that include Campbell's Soup Company, Playboy, Universal Studios, The North Face, and Louis Vuitton Monet Hennessey. Each of those companies mentioned has had an intellectual property appear on Suprme products in officially-licensed collaborations.

13. Jebbia admits to approving the initial "Supreme Bitch" T-shirt, but denies selling it at Union. He also says limited-edition apparel is a hallmark of the streetwear industry.

Jebbia denies that he offered McSweeney's tees for sale at Union, and further emphasizes that the only reason he approved the design "was for a one-time use of SUPREME BITCH on a T-shirt, as is the standard practice in the skatewear and street wear industry." This is pretty in line with Bobby Hundreds' outlook on streetwear, that "distribution through selective channels, sales distro and image are what ultimately constitute a brand as streetwear, not the art or design."

14. The "Supreme Bitch" logo dilutes the "Supreme" brand "by selling a lower-quality product."

Supreme prides itself on the quality control of its products. Clothes are meant to withstand the rigors of skating, and the graphics are informed by a rich cultural influence spanning the worlds of music, art, and pop culture. The brand claims that MTTM's "Supreme Bitch" mark dilutes those very ideals because the logo is so similar, and not transformative at all. Essentially, Supreme feels MTTM's continued use of "Supreme Bitch," is corny, and by selling it available at retailers like Urban Outfitters, it makes the "exclusive" Supreme look even worse.

15. McSweeney invoking the First Amendment is just some smart lawyer bullsh*t and this is really about money.

When the case says McSweeney uses the "Supreme Bitch" mark as a "source identifier," what that means is she believes people will see that, and think of Married to the Mob. While that's true, Supreme argues that people will also think of their brand first, which is also very true. The case says "SUPREME BITCH is a transparent effort to profit from the goodwill and the brand recognition of the SUPREME Logo."