In a YouTube video where Kim Kardashian showcases her Skkn by Kim company offices, she highlights the minimalist design and chic furniture present in the 40,000-square-foot space. She specifically mentions Donald Judd tables as a standout feature, although the Judd Foundation, which represents the artist’s legacy, disputes this claim. The foundation has filed a lawsuit against Kardashian and Clements Design, the company responsible for producing the tables and chairs that resemble Judd’s designs. The foundation alleges trademark and copyright infringement, as well as false claims that suggest an affiliation with the Donald Judd brand.
The Judd furniture in question, including a table priced at $90,000 and chairs at $9,000 each, are crucial to the foundation’s financial stability. The revenue from these designs accounts for nearly half of the organization’s earned income. After the video was released, the foundation contacted Kardashian about the furniture, prompting discussions about how to rectify the situation. However, negotiations broke down as the foundation insisted on the deletion of the video, the destruction of the furniture, and a public statement from Kardashian. Despite offers to issue a retraction and support the foundation on social media, the dispute remains unresolved and is now headed to court.
Clements Design, the company behind the Kardashian office’s design, has defended its furniture, stating that it significantly differs from Judd’s creations. They argue that the materials and proportions are distinct and that they did not commission imitation Judd tables. The company believed the matter had been settled following prior acknowledgment of differences by the Judd Foundation’s former legal counsel. However, a recent lawsuit and statements from the foundation assert otherwise, claiming that the furniture described as “in the style of Donald Judd” still presents a quality concern and a risk of association with Kardashian.
The Judd Foundation’s commitment to protecting its founder’s work is highlighted in this case, reminiscent of Judd’s own dedication to authenticity during his lifetime. Judd, known for fiercely defending his creations, had previously called out collectors who attempted to replicate his designs without his involvement, citing concerns about materials and quality. The foundation’s current legal actions against Kardashian and Clements Design reflect their determination to preserve the integrity of Judd’s legacy, emphasizing the importance of proper attribution in the art and design world. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding intellectual property rights and the responsibilities of artists and designers to acknowledge and respect original creations.
