Chippendales, Strippendales Trademark Dispute Settled

Facts in the Backdrop of the Incident

Chippendales USA, LLC owned and operated the world-famous Chippendales entertainment brand. The troupe, founded in Los Angeles in 1979, became known as the first all-male burlesque act. Its signature “Cuffs and Collar” costume became a cultural symbol. Over time, Chippendales gained registered and common law trademark rights. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California declared Chippendales the exclusive owner of these marks. The brand expanded worldwide, earning recognition and goodwill in live entertainment.

Events Leading to the Legal Dispute

The dispute arose when Christian W. Banerjee and his companies—Strippendales Corporation, Strippendales LLC, and Strippendales69 LLC—allegedly used the CHIPPENDALES name and marks without authorization. They promoted services under the exact mark and confusingly similar variations. The defendants also used an older bow tie design mark and referred to themselves as “The Real Chippendale’s.” In June 2023, Chippendales sent a cease-and-desist letter. Instead of stopping, the defendants allegedly expanded their activities. They also claimed that Banerjee was the rightful owner of the Chippendales brand, accusing the plaintiff of fraudulently taking it.

Plaintiff’s Injuries and Their Impact

Chippendales argued that defendants’ actions caused irreparable harm. Consumers allegedly confused the defendants’ services with the Chippendales brand. The defendants carried poor online ratings, including reviews describing them as “disgusting,” “disrespectful,” and “degrading to women.” Such associations allegedly eroded Chippendales’ reputation and goodwill. Customers receiving subpar services could wrongly attribute these experiences to Chippendales, weakening the plaintiff’s established brand identity and trust.

Claimed Damages

The plaintiff sought both injunctive relief and monetary compensation. Chippendales asked the court to stop the infringement and unfair competition. It also demanded statutory damages, recovery of defendants’ profits, and enhanced damages. In addition, Chippendales pursued reimbursement of costs and attorney’s fees. The company asserted financial loss, reputational injury, and diminished goodwill as key harms requiring redress.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff(s): Chippendales USA, LLC

• Counsel for Plaintiff: Caroline H. Mankey | Christopher Neil McAndrew | Marc A. Lieberstein

• Defendant(s): Christian W. Banerjee | Strippendales Corporation | Strippendales LLC | Strippendales69 LLC

• Counsel for Defendants: Sanford M. Passman

Claims Against the Defendants

The complaint advanced four claims. Count I alleged federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, citing unauthorized use of confusingly similar marks. Count II alleged federal trademark counterfeiting under the same statute, asserting defendants used spurious, indistinguishable marks. Count III alleged federal unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), arguing the conduct deceived consumers. Count IV alleged California unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., claiming the defendants misled the public and violated state law.

Defense

The defendants denied Chippendales USA, LLC’s allegations and raised several affirmative defenses. They argued the complaint failed to state a valid claim and insisted there was no likelihood of confusion. They challenged the validity of the Chippendales trademarks, accusing the plaintiff of trademark misuse and fraud on the USPTO. They also asserted defenses of unclean hands, fair or descriptive use, and fraudulent transfer of trademark rights.

The defendants further contended that the plaintiff suffered no damages or irreparable harm and therefore could not obtain injunctive relief. They claimed their conduct was non-willful, taken in good faith, and without intent to infringe. Additional defenses included waiver, estoppel, laches, acquiescence, failure to mitigate, and the statute of limitations. Ultimately, they asked the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, award them attorneys’ fees, and enter judgment in their favor.

Settlement

On June 17, 2025, Chippendales USA, LLC and defendants Chris Bane (sued as Christian W. Banerjee), Strippendales Corporation, Strippendales LLC, and Strippendales69 LLC reached a settlement, confirmed by email and followed by a proposed permanent injunction. The injunction required defendants to abandon pending trademark applications, cease all use of names and marks such as “Strippendales,” “Cuffs and Collars,” and “Son of Chippendales,” discontinue related domains and social media, and refrain from challenging Chippendales’ trademark rights or making disparaging public statements. The parties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice, each bearing their own legal costs, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the injunction.

Court Documents

Court documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com