Neil Young vs. Chrome Hearts: When Rock Meets Runway in Court

Neil Young vs. Chrome Hearts — What happens when a rock legend collides with a luxury fashion powerhouse? Chrome Hearts has filed suit against Neil Young, claiming his new band “Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts” infringes on their famous trademark

Show Notes: 

 

Scott:  Neil Young, one of the most influential voices in rock history, has landed in federal court, but not for his music. His new backing band, Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts, has become the center of a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by luxury fashion brand, Chrome Hearts. At issue is whether Neil Young’s use of the Chrome Hearts’ name, and especially the sale of related merchandise, crossed the line into infringement. I’m Scott Hervey, a partner of the I’m a law firm of Weintraub Tobin, and today I’m joined by my partner, James Kachmar. We are going to break down Chrome Hearts versus Neil Young on today’s installment of The Briefing.

 

James, welcome back to The Briefing. Good to have you.

 

James:  Thanks for having me, Scott. Anytime you’ve got a clash between a rock legend and a fashion powerhouse, you know it’s going to be an interesting case.

Scott:  Oh, absolutely. Well, so let’s set the stage, shall we? So Chrome Hearts filed suit in the Central District of California against Neil Young and his production company, the Other Shoe Productions, and his bandmates. The complaint alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition. But I think the centerpiece of this case really is the federal trademark infringement claim. I think, really, this case either lives or dies on whether or not Neil Young has violated the Lanham Act. Okay, let’s talk about some background here. Chrome Hearts, for those of you who aren’t aware, Chrome Hearts is not just a boutique clothing line. It’s a billion-dollar brand that’s been around since 1988. They’ve built an empire on jewelry, leather goods, apparel, eyewear, and even furniture. They’ve collaborated with the Rolling Stones, Rihanna, Madonna, Drake, and countless others. Their products are sold in exclusive boutiques worldwide, and they have a loyal following among musicians and celebrities. Now, critically, Chrome Hearts has a very long list of federally-registered trademarks covering Chrome Hearts, both the wordmark and related designs. These registrations span across jewelry, letter goods, clothing, eyewear, retail store services, and even entertainment services in the nature of live performances by a musical band.

 

Now, that last one is particularly important because I think it directly overlaps with Neil Young’s activities.

 

James:  I knew about Chrome Hearts as a fashion and jewelry brand, but I had no idea that there was a band associated with it. Did you know that, Scott?

 

Scott:  No, I didn’t until I read the complaint. I got a little curious, and I found the specific trademark that covered their entertainment services. I mean, it’s listed in the complaint. I looked up its file at the USPTO to see what specimens it submitted. Lo and behold, it’s a photo of a band with the band name Chrome Hearts right there on the stage monitors. I tried to find out more about that band, but when you search Chrome Hearts Band, all you get is references to Neil Young’s new band.

 

James: Neil Young launched this new band, Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts, last year in 2024. They played shows in New York, branded the outing as the Chrome Hearts Tour, and then released new music earlier this year, including a full studio album this past June. The complaint highlights that they were selling T-shirts and other merchandise, prominently using the Chrome Hearts name as part of that tour.

 

Scott:  If I had to guess, I would say that’s really the spark. Touring under a band name might have been acceptable, especially since it’s Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts. But I think once Young started selling merchandise, shirts, hoodies, and other items bearing Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts, that’s probably what caused Chrome Hearts to file its lawsuit. According to the complaint, vendors and fans, allegedly, have assumed there’s a collaboration between Young and the Chrome Hearts. That’s exactly the consumer confusion trademark law is designed to prevent.

 

James:  Yeah, and this isn’t the first time we’ve seen a conflict between a fashion brand and a musical tour.

 

Scott:  That’s right. Earlier this year, you and I covered the Lady Gaga mayhem case. In that one, the surf and lifestyle brand, Lost International, claimed that Lady Gaga’s use of mayhem as her tour and album title and on her merch conflicted with their registered trademark for clothing.

 

James: Exactly. Lost had been using mayhem since the late 1980s and owned a federal trademark registration that also covered apparel. Their argument was that Lady Gaga’s tour merchandise created a likelihood of confusion with their surfwear products.

 

Scott:  That case really highlighted the importance or risk of overlap. Even though Lady Gaga wasn’t in the surf industry, both sides were selling clothing. The court was going to analyze this overlap, the potential of trademark infringement, through the Sleekcraft factors.

 

James:  Right. That’s the same framework that the court would apply here. Let’s get into it. In trademark law, the core issue is whether there’s a likelihood of confusion. Courts will apply some version of the Sleekcraft factors in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion with regard to the infringement complaint.

 

Scott:  Right. So let’s walk through them and let’s make a determination whether they would support Chrome Hearts or Neil Young. Now, obviously, we’re making these calls extremely early in the case before Young has even answered the complaint and before discovery. But I don’t know. I think we know enough about trademark law. Maybe there’s enough facts just from the complaint where we can see where this is going. All right. So just a quick recap. In California, courts analyzing a trademark infringement claim, they’re going to look at the Sleekcraft factors, which are the following: the strength of the plaintiff’s mark, the similarity of the marks at issue, the similarity or the relatedness of the goods covered by of those marks, the similarity of the marketing channels for those goods, both the plaintiffs and the defendants, the degree of care likely to be exercised by the consumer of those goods, whether it’s a sophisticated consumer or not, evidence of actual confusion, the defendant’s intent in selecting the marks, and likelihood of expansion of the product lines.

 

James:  Scott, let’s start at the top, the strength of Chrome Heart’s mark.

 

Scott:  All right. Okay, good call. I think Chrome Heart’s Mark is strong. It’s been around for decades, has incontestable registrations, and is pretty widely recognized in both fashion and music circles. Now, the registration provides them with certain presumptions of ownership and certain presumptions of the right to use the mark nationwide, and that mark is distinctive. I think this factor strongly favors Chrome Heart.

 

James:  Okay, but I’m not sure the next factor favors Chrome Hearts, and that’s a similarity of the marks. Here, Neil Young is using Chrome Hearts as part of his mark, but as his band name, Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts, and his tour name is the Chrome Hearts Tour. So the marks appear to be different in appearance, sound, and meaning. I think this factor may end up favoring Neil Young.

 

Scott:  I’m having flashbacks of our Lady Gaga conversation. I think I have to agree with you partially. I think the primary focus of Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts is Neil Young. I agree with you there that favors Neil Young. However, the Chrome Hearts Tour is very different. I think that one is more similar than dissimilar to Chrome Hearts, Mark.

 

James:  Okay, so let’s discuss the relatedness of the goods and services factor. Both parties are offering clothing and live music-related entertainment; it would be hard to see how this factor could not favor Chrome Hearts here.

 

Scott:  I think I agree, James. However, even though those goods are the same, I think the marketing channels factor show some significant differences in the nature of those goods. So this factor examines how and where the prospective goods or services are advertised and sold. Now, Chrome Hearts markets its products online and in high-end stores. Not quite sure where the Chrome Heart band performs, but I’m going to assume that it’s not in the same type of venues or has the same ticket prices as Neil Young. Now, as for Young’s merch, I couldn’t find any website that sells it. I note that there isn’t a dedicated website for Neil Young and Chrome Hearts. It’s my guess that the tour merch is sold only at tour venues. Now, yes, the Chrome Hearts tour is promoted online. However, courts do not treat the internet as a single undifferentiated channel. When they look at how and where on the internet the goods or services are sold and marketed, and to whom. I think it’s to whom where Chrome Hearts may have issues. I think it’s fair to assume that there’s not really going to be a significant an overlap between consumers of Chrome Hearts clothing and fans of Neil Young.  I’m sure we’re going to see evidence of that introduced in this case.

 

James: Yeah, I agree on that point. Let’s look at the evidence of actual confusion. The complaint points to vendors and consumers who believe there may be some connection between Neil Young and Chrome Heart, the fashion brand. This factor tends to be a fairly significant one in these types of cases.

 

Scott:  Right, it does. But I think just looking at the complaint itself, I think I’d have to call this one neutral since we really need to see more facts. If this is just one or two vendors, then I would probably call it a fluke and not convincing. However, if it were a significant number of consumers and vendors, well, that’s different.

 

James:  Right. Usually, you would see some survey or opinion of experts on that issue. Let’s talk about the defendant’s intent in adopting this mark. This factor considers whether the defendant adopted the mark with the intention of trading on the plaintiff’s goodwill. The complaint alleges that Neil Young was on constructive notice of Chrome Hearts trademark and was on actual notice based on a cease and desist letter that was sent in July 2025.

 

Scott:  Right. Now, I would assume that Young’s team ran a trademark search before coming up with the band and tour name and if they did, they would certainly have seen the Chrome Hearts trademarks. However, Young’s team may very well have concluded that there isn’t any likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

 

James:  Okay. Scott, where How did you come out on this? What’s your early assessment of this case?

 

Scott:  Okay. After I give you mine, you have to give me yours. I think that Chrome Hearts may have a very tough time with preventing the use of Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts. I think this mark is different enough, and the use of Neil Young as the primary focus of that mark pushes it over the top. Plus, the fact that the band and tour merch is sold only at concert venues, I assume that is going to be proven out. I think that really seals the deal. Now, the use of Chrome Hearts’ tour may be different, but in doing my research, I didn’t see any merch using Chrome Hearts Tour. The images included in the complaint, the images of the concert T-shirts, they call the tour, the merch has the tour labeled as the Love Earth Tour. I think we’ll have to wait and see what discovery uncovers with regard to the Chrome Hearts tour. What’s your take?

 

James:  I largely agree with that, Scott. I think in a lot of these cases, it’s going to come down to battling experts over the likelihood of actual confusion, where you’re going to have surveys to show how consumers may or may not have been confused between the two marks. I think you had mentioned earlier that it’s hard to see how a fan of Neil Young and a patron of Chrome Heart’s luxury brands is going to be much overlap or confusion.

 

Scott:  Right. I agree. It’ll be interesting to follow up and see if our call, which I think both of us are calling a high chance of success for Neil Young in defending the case, at least with regard to Neil Young and the Chrome Heart.

 

James:  Right. So, Scott, what’s the lesson here? First, musicians need to recognize that merchandise isn’t just an afterthought. It’s often where the money is made, and it’s where trademark issues frequently arise.

 

Scott:  Right. And let’s remember that courts wide authority to issue injunctions. If a case doesn’t settle, the agreed party may push hard to stop any further use of the name in connection with the concert and merch. That could be a significant issue for a touring band.

 

James:  I agree. Scott, what are some of your recommendations for young bands or artists out there?

 

Scott:  Yeah, good question, James. Okay, there are a few. So first, do a trademark search. Before naming a band or a tour, have a concert run a search to spot conflicts. And if you’re running the search, make sure that you also look at traditional band and tour merch, T-shirts, posters, coffee cups, etc. Avoid famous or established marks. If a name already has significant goodwill in fashion, entertainment, or consumer goods, I would steer clear of that. Consider licensing or collaboration. If you’re set on a name that overlaps with an existing brand, explore a licensing deal. Chrome Hearts has done collaborations before. They’re not a stranger to music tie-ins. I would suggest, though, before you reach out to an existing brand about a potential deal, get counsel from a lawyer experienced in this space. It could be like waving a red cape in front of an angry bull. So just be careful. And then lastly, think beyond music. Remember that trademark rights often extend to merchandise, live events, and online promotions. If your band name touches on those areas, you need clearance.

 

James:  One more thing, don’t forget to protect your brand. Once you’ve picked a name, consider registering it as a trademark yourself. This will likely give you stronger rights and may deter disputes down the road.

 

Scott:  That’s a great point, James. Thank you to our listeners for joining us on The Briefing. If you found this episode helpful or interesting, please take a moment to subscribe, like, and share it with your network. We’d also love to hear from you. Leave us a comment or review and let us know what topics you’d like us to cover in future episodes. I’m Scott Hervey. See you next time on The Briefing.