Though RHODE has established itself enough to continue to succeed alongside Bieber’s skin-care line, the two founders explained in their preliminary injunction and opening statements that they felt legal action was necessary to protect the history and legacy of their brand. In the introduction to the preliminary injunction, RHODE explains that building their brand from the ground up was profoundly difficult being that the two founders “had no name recognition and no connections, no following and no financing.” The introductory statement emphasizes how the success of the brand in recent years is a testament to the hard work and perseverance it took on behalf of everyone involved with RHODE from the start.

The introduction continues on to point out how unfair it is for RHODE to be threatened by a brand created by a “mega-famous” celebrity who “was just getting started on the runway when Khatau and Vickers started shipping dresses from their apartments.” The factual background of the case outlines how Bieber’s company adopted Rhode’s mark and continued to launch the brand under it despite the Plaintiff’s attempts at resolution which has caused immediate and widespread consumer confusion and on-going harm to the RHODE franchise as a result.

It’s hard to say what lies ahead for Bieber’s debut brand, but RHODE’s reaction sets an important precedent for holding celebrity brands accountable and demanding respect for those who came before them.