Pharrell Williams, the multi-platinum selling musician and producer, has a promo company in his crosshairs.

  • The artist/mogul is suing Spreadshirt for $14 million, through the popular apparel company he co-founded, Billionaire Boys Club Ice Cream Clothing, alleging that the distributor has printed and facilitated unauthorized apparel with the Billionaire Boys Club brand.
  • Founded in 2003 by Williams and Nigo, a prominent Japanese streetwear artist, Billionaire Boys Club apparel is a popular fashion brand within skateboard and hip-hop circles, often leading to considerable resale value.


The lawsuit argues that Spreadshirt was using generic packaging to deliberately obscure its involvement in counterfeit sales. The lawsuit alleges that Spreadshirt was responsible for the printing, packaging and shipping of apparel in which third parties had uploaded Billionaire Boys Club logos and brand signifiers without permission.

“Spreadshirt’s conduct continues unabated,” Williams’ attorney Richard J. Pocker wrote in the filing. “The manufacture, publishing, advertising for sale and sales of counterfeit and infringing products persist. BBC brings this action to put a stop to this ongoing unlawful conduct and to hold Spreadshirt accountable for their actions.”

The manufacture, publishing, advertising for sale and sales of counterfeit and infringing products persist.”

Richard J. Pocker

Attorney for Pharrell Williams/Billionaire Boys Club

Promo Perspective

While this case is yet to be settled, it serves as a cautionary tale for the significant risk in using trademarked brands without permission. Some of the origins of streetwear culture that the Billionaire Boys Club arose out of could sometimes involve overlooked trademark infringements, but BBC owns its logos and brands and using them unauthorized is against the law.

  • The Lanham Act provides for a national system of trademark registration and protects the owner of a federally registered trademark against the use of similar marks if such use is likely to result in consumer confusion or if the dilution of a trademark is likely to occur. 


RELATED: Jury Deems Vintage Brands Guilty Of Infringing On Penn State Trademark

Danny Rosin, CAS, president and co-owner of North Carolina-based distributor Brand Fuel, PPAI 100’s No. 29 distributor, began his promo career as a college student naively selling shirts with trademarked logos without permission.

“The younger Danny that sold ‘Duke Sucks’ T-shirts when he was at UNC, who ran from the cops after hocking shirts at concerts and basketball games, would say that it’s every man for himself,” Rosin, incoming chair of the PPAI Board, told PPAI Media last year. “But the current Danny says that licensing is important. Elton John, as rich as he is, has earned the right to manage his brand the way he wants/needs to.”

  • Spreadshirt has not responded to PPAI Media’s request for comment. Whether it was deliberately evading trademark laws, as the lawsuit alleges, is unclear.
  • However, mistakenly or unknowingly using trademarked images can still land a company in a fair deal of legal trouble.

As detailed in this LinkedIn post, there are preventive steps that print-on-demand companies can take to minimize this risk including automated IP detection software.

  • In a landmark legal victory for the promo industry in 2018, a federal court jury ruled in favor of ETS Express after the supplier was sued for alleged trademark infringement by Can’t Live Without It, LLC, dba S’well Bottle.


Conversely, you don’t want to infringe upon someone else’s IP when creating or designing products. When accepting an order, distributors should avoid the obvious such as Disney, Star Wars, Marvel characters and the like, as well as famous landmarks, slogans, logos, likenesses of famous people and photos and art of unknown origin.