Kourtney Kardashian Embroiled In Surreal Trademark Showdown With Chinese Vape Giant

Kourtney Kardashian’s booming Lemme empire has found itself entangled in an unexpected trademark battle that feels stranger than fiction.

What began as a wellness venture has shifted into a high-stakes clash with a Hong Kong–based vape and cigarette supplier using the same brand name.

With both sides digging in, legal filings, accusations, and competing trademarks are pushing this confrontation into dramatic new territory.

Kardashian’s Lemme brand has grown from a stylish wellness concept into a multimillion-dollar success story.

However, its rise has attracted a surprising challenger: another company, also known as Lemme, operating out of Hong Kong while distributing its products in the United States.

Unlike Kardashian’s vitamin-packed supplements, this counterpart produces cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and related nicotine goods, creating an unusual collision between two vastly different industries sharing a single name.

Both companies filed for trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a move that set the stage for an inevitable clash.

After reviewing Hong Kong Senran Technology Company’s application, Kardashian’s team went on the offense.

According to legal documents obtained by the Daily Mail, Lemme Inc. formally opposed the competing trademark, arguing that the name posed a risk to the brand they have spent years cultivating.

Their opposition filing cites concerns over “priority and likelihood of confusion” and “dilution by blurring” as central arguments for rejecting the other Lemme’s claim.

The list of goods Kardashian’s team wants blocked includes cigarettes, cigarette filters, cigarettes containing tobacco substitutes, electronic cigarette atomizers, electronic cigarettes and liquid nicotine solutions for use in electronic cigarettes.

The wellness brand insists consumers already associate the name with Kardashian’s vitamins, pointing to the legal filing stating that “consumers have come to recognize LEMME as identifying the source of high-quality vitamins and vitamin supplements that originate from Opposer [Kardashian's brand].”

With product lines like Lemme Purr and Lemme Mama already on shelves around the country, they argue the Hong Kong company’s chosen name is “identical and/or confusingly similar to each of the Lemme Marks in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.”

Adding to their concerns, they warn that “Any dissatisfaction with [Lemme Hong Kong] goods will reflect upon and irreparably damage the reputation and goodwill of [Kardashian's Lemme] as embodied in the LEMME Marks.”

Beyond the issue of consumer confusion, Kourtney Kardashian’s team believes the competing trademark threatens to dilute the identity of their wellness brand.

Their filing argues the other company’s use is “likely to cause dilution by blurring and tarnishment of Opposer’s famous mark LEMME in violation of the anti-dilution provisions.”

Hong Kong Senran Technology Company fired back on November 10 with a detailed response rejecting nearly every accusation.

Their position is blunt: they deny that Kardashian’s brand “has been or will be damaged” by their application and reject the idea that the two companies are competing in overlapping spaces.

They also challenge Lemme Inc.’s claim to widespread fame, stating, “Opposer’s dilution claims fail as a matter of law because [Kardashian's Lemme] has not established its marks are famous to the general public of the United States, as required under the Lanham Act.”

In their view, recognition within the wellness sector does not extend far enough to justify such an argument.

As they further assert, “At most, Opposer’s marks have achieved recognition within the vitamin industry, which is insufficient to support claims of dilution - particularly in connection with goods in the cigarette products industry, where no such fame has been demonstrated.”

Their defense clearly maintains that the two brands operate in different worlds.

As their filing puts it, “There is no likelihood of confusion between Opposer’s marks with Applicant’s Application due to the significant differences in the respective goods and their respective channels of trade of each party, and the absence of any relatedness of the parties’ goods.”

While this international trademark fight heats up, Lemme continues to flourish in the U.S. market.

The brand’s gummies, which began with flavors like Lemme Matcha, Lemme Focus, and Lemme Chill, have expanded dramatically since their 2022 launch.

With vegan, gluten-free, and non-GMO formulations, the supplement line quickly gained a foothold in major retailers such as Target.

By April, the company had reportedly generated around $61 million in online sales in just six months.

Fans and consumers have flocked to its ever-growing lineup of wellness offerings, including Lemme Sleep, Lemme Debloat, Lemme Glow, and the now-famous Lemme Purr vaginal probiotic gummies.

This fall, Kardashian even ventured into new territory with Lemme Purr Probiotic Lollipops, a vitamin-infused treat designed with women’s health in mind.

A trademark filing from March hints at another forthcoming expansion: a detox-focused line called Lemme V-Tox.

Kardashian also recently launched Lemme Colostrum, enlisting her sister Kim to help unveil the product.

The supplement, inspired by nutrients found in breast milk, aims to support gut health and comes in both gummy and liquid form.

This trademark battle isn’t the only legal challenge swirling around Lemme.

Earlier this year, the company faced a lawsuit from California resident Christina Robins, who alleged that Lemme’s GLP-1 gummies were falsely advertised.

The suit was filed both in California and in federal court in New York, the latter of which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The California case, however, remains active.

Lemme’s legal team pushed back firmly, arguing in filings that Robins “fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”

A status conference is scheduled for December to address the demurrer raised by Kardashian’s lawyers.

While unrelated to the trademark fight, the case underscores how rapidly the Lemme brand has grown and how much scrutiny it now attracts.