Blake Lively's real last name is Brown. Most people don't know that — and from a trademark standpoint, that's the whole problem.

When she launched her hair care line in August 2024, she called it Blake Brown: her first name paired with a surname she's never used professionally. It debuted at Target, generated $16 million in media impact value in its first week, and was reportedly Target's largest hair care launch on record. Then a lawsuit with her It Ends With Us co-director Justin Baldoni became public and sales fell off a cliff. But that's a separate story.

The trademark story is interesting on its own — and it reveals a strategy that is clever, aggressive, and worth understanding.

She Filed an Opposition — Here's What That Means

Lively's company, Family Hive LLC, filed intent-to-use applications for BLAKE BROWN in 2024. Those applications are still pending.

While they were working through the USPTO, a Utah entrepreneur named Kimberlie Hamner filed her own application for BEAUTY BY BLAKE, covering cosmetic oils and serums. The USPTO published it without issuing any substantive refusal. That's when Family Hive pulled a specific legal lever: a trademark opposition.

An opposition is a formal proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board — the USPTO's in-house court — that allows a third party to challenge a pending application before it registers. It's how brand owners say "not so fast." Family Hive's argument was that consumers would be confused between BEAUTY BY BLAKE and BLAKE BROWN, and that Hamner had "no connection whatsoever" with Lively's company.

Hamner hired a lawyer — David Stewart of T-Rex Law, P.C. in Carlsbad, California, which is a great name for a law firm — and fought back. Her answer denied the confusion allegations and included a line worth quoting. When Family Hive alleged Hamner lacked permission to use her mark, the answer read: "Admitted. Applicant does not require Opposer's permission or license to use Applicant's Mark."

Why Name Marks Are Tricky

Trademark law treats names differently from other marks, and for good reason. Under § 2(e)(4) of the Lanham Act, a mark that is "primarily merely a surname" can't be registered without proof of acquired distinctiveness — meaning you have to show the public actually associates the name with your brand, not just that it's your name. The law explicitly recognizes that surnames are shared, that multiple people may have a legitimate interest in using the same name in business, and that no one gets to lock one down without earning it.

BROWN is the fourth most common surname in the United States. Family Hive hasn't cleared the acquired distinctiveness hurdle yet — the applications haven't been approved. BLAKE adds some distinctiveness to the combination, but it's a top-250 name in the US, unisex, and genuinely common. It doesn't transform a weak mark into a strong one.

The Crowded Field Problem

Hamner's answer identified four BLAKE-formative marks already registered in Class 3 cosmetics: OLIVIA BLAKE, ELEA BLAKE, RYAN BLAKE, and SMOOCHES BY BLAYKE — several predating Lively's applications. Class 3 covers a broad range of goods moving through all normal retail channels, so there are almost certainly more.

This matters because likelihood of confusion analysis turns heavily on mark strength. Under the du Pont factors, evidence that consumers encounter multiple similar marks on similar goods shows that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection — only against nearly identical marks for nearly identical goods. BEAUTY BY BLAKE and BLAKE BROWN are not nearly identical. They share a common first name held by hundreds of thousands of people, and nothing else.

Hamner's answer also raised the "first word dominance" principle: consumers tend to focus on the first word of a mark, and BEAUTY vs. BLAKE creates a different commercial impression. The opposition asks the TTAB to ignore that distinction entirely.

What's Really Going On Here Is Probably Pretty Mean Gamesmanship

When you have a weak mark in a crowded field, one way to strengthen it is to shrink the field. File oppositions against everyone using a similar term. Most small businesses can't afford to fight — they'll abandon their applications rather than spend money on TTAB proceedings. Over time, the field clears. The mark looks less crowded. The claim to distinctiveness gets a little stronger with each name that disappears.

It's a rational brand-building strategy. It's also, when deployed by a celebrity-backed LLC against a sole entrepreneur, a fairly ruthless one. The Lanham Act's surname rules exist precisely because the law recognizes that multiple people have a legitimate interest in using their own name in business. Kimberlie Hamner's first name is Blake. The law was designed, in part, to protect her from exactly this.

Family Hive is asking the TTAB to clear the field on a mark that hasn't registered, for a brand whose commercial strength hasn't been established. And while plenty of people now know Lively's surname is Brown — the Swifties boycotting her products made sure of that — celebrity notoriety isn't necessarily trademark strength. Being famous for drama doesn't translate into enforceable rights over a common first name in a crowded product category.

The TTAB hasn't ruled yet. But given the crowded field, the mark's inherent weakness, and the policy rationale behind name mark rules, Family Hive has a much harder case than the opposition filing suggests.

Legalish is supported by Lynch LLP — Trademark · Copyright · Patents