Hayley Paige Lawsuit: JLM Couture, Injunction, and Appeals

The Hayley Paige lawsuit was a four-year fight between bridal designer Hayley Paige Gutman and her former employer, JLM Couture, over who owned her name, her trademarks, and the social media accounts she had built during her employment. It ended in May 2024, when a Delaware bankruptcy court approved a settlement in which Gutman paid JLM $263,000 to buy back her name, her trademarks, and the @misshayleypaige accounts, and was released from a five-year non-compete.¹²

The Contract That Started It

Gutman was 25 when JLM Couture, a New York bridal house, hired her as head designer in 2011. She signed the employment contract on July 13, 2011, without a lawyer. Its terms shaped everything that came later.³

Section 10(b) assigned JLM ownership, in perpetuity, of the “Designer’s Name,” a term defined to include “Hayley,” “Paige,” “Hayley Paige Gutman,” “Hayley Gutman,” “Hayley Paige,” and any derivative. She could not use those names in trade or commerce without JLM’s written consent. She also had to irrevocably assign JLM the right to register trademarks under her name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Section 11 classified every drawing, pattern, sketch, and prototype she created on the job as a “work for hire” owned by JLM. Section 9(a) barred her from competing with JLM during employment and for five years after. In return, she received a base salary, sales-based pay, and a percentage of revenue from products sold under her name for ten years after her departure.⁴

The contract said nothing about social media accounts. That silence would become the most consequential gap in the document. The original term ran through 2016, and JLM exercised an option to extend it through August 1, 2022.⁵

By then Gutman had turned the Hayley Paige label into JLM’s most commercially successful line. Between 2014 and 2020, JLM generated roughly $220 million in sales of Hayley Paige-branded apparel.⁴

How the Lawsuit Began

Gutman, now represented by counsel, tried to renegotiate her contract in early 2019. Talks broke down. By that summer she had created a “misshayleypaige” TikTok account and changed the login credentials on the main @misshayleypaige Instagram, locking JLM out.⁴

On December 15, 2020, JLM sued her in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (case 1:20-cv-10575), before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. The complaint alleged breach of contract, federal and common-law trademark dilution, unfair competition, conversion, and trespass to chattels. JLM argued that Gutman’s social media activity — including posts promoting third-party products and non-bridal content — violated her contract and harmed the brand, and it asserted ownership of the accounts themselves.⁶

The Injunction That Sidelined Her

One day after the suit was filed, the court granted JLM a temporary restraining order forcing Gutman to hand over control of her social media accounts. On March 4, 2021, Judge Swain converted that into a preliminary injunction. Gutman had 24 hours to turn over Instagram, TikTok, and Pinterest login credentials. She was barred from using her name — or any variation — in trade or commerce, from competing with JLM in the bridal industry, and from posting through any of 18 social media accounts JLM identified as company property.⁴

The effect was severe. She could not publicly identify herself by her birth name for any commercial purpose. She could not design or sell wedding dresses. She could not talk to her audience through the accounts she had built. JLM took control of @misshayleypaige and kept posting from it.⁷

The Second Circuit Rulings

Gutman appealed. The Second Circuit heard the case twice, and each ruling narrowed JLM’s position.

January 2022

On January 25, 2022, the appeals court affirmed the parts of the injunction enforcing the non-compete and the name-rights clause. But it vacated the portion handing JLM exclusive control of the Instagram, TikTok, and Pinterest accounts, holding that the district court had ordered the transfer without first deciding whether JLM actually owned them. That question was sent back to the trial court.⁴

January 2024

The second ruling, issued January 17, 2024, was the one Gutman’s lawyers called precedent-setting. The Second Circuit threw out the district court’s “novel six-factor test” for account ownership and held that social media accounts are property to be analyzed under existing intangible-property law. Analysis should begin with the “original owner”: an account created using personal information for personal use presumptively belongs to its creator, regardless of how it was used later.⁸

The court also rejected JLM’s argument that the “works for hire” clause, covering “designs, drawings, notes, patterns, sketches, and prototypes,” swept in social media accounts. Applying ejusdem generis, it found that accounts are nothing like sketches or prototypes. And on the non-compete, the court vacated enforcement of the five-year restriction because the district court had not analyzed whether the covenant was reasonable in scope, duration, and burden under New York law.⁸

How It Ended

JLM Couture was running out of money. On October 2, 2023, it filed for Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (case 1:23-bk-11659).⁹ Then, in May 2024, Judge Swain upheld the non-compete’s validity in principle but ruled that JLM had failed to prove it owned the disputed accounts. With the appellate wins in hand and JLM in bankruptcy, both sides moved to settle.²

On May 24, 2024, the Delaware bankruptcy court approved the settlement. Gutman paid JLM $263,000 within five days, and in exchange got back:

Her name and the right to use it commercially.
The trademarks for Hayley Paige Bridal, Blush by Hayley Paige, and Hayley Paige Occasions.
Lookbooks, copyrighted designs, and other associated intellectual property.
The @misshayleypaige accounts on Instagram, Pinterest, YouTube, and Facebook.

The agreement released her from all rights, restrictions, and obligations owed to JLM, including the non-compete, and included a mutual non-disparagement clause. Neither party admitted liability.¹²

What Happened to JLM Couture

JLM did not survive. After the Chapter 11 filing it terminated all employees except a small administrative crew and stopped selling inventory. As of May 2025, the company was seeking bankruptcy court approval to sell substantially all of its remaining assets — trademarks, designs, equipment, and certain legal claims — to CLO Holdings, LLC, a Florida entity solely owned by founder Joseph L. Murphy. The proposed deal valued the assets at $50,000 in cash plus forgiveness of roughly $664,000 in post-petition loans and unpaid wages owed to Murphy. No auction was planned; prior efforts to find a third-party buyer had failed. JLM said it would use the proceeds to pay administrative expenses and address creditor claims before either converting or dismissing the Chapter 11 case.¹⁰

What Gutman Did Next

During the injunction, Gutman worked around what the court had taken. On August 8, 2022, she legally changed her name to “Cheval,” and a month later launched a footwear brand called She Is Cheval, with a 12-style debut collection sold through a pop-up at South Street Seaport.¹¹ On International Women’s Day 2023, she launched the A Girl You Might Know Foundation, a nonprofit focused on helping young creatives and women protect their intellectual property, and she has advocated on those issues on Capitol Hill.¹²

In July 2025, she relaunched her bridal line with a collection titled “Twice Upon A Time,” debuting at The Colony Hotel in Palm Beach. The Spring 2026 gowns are priced between $3,000 and $5,000 and are being sold through retailers including The White Dress by the Shore in Connecticut and The Bridal Collection in Denver.¹³ Kleinfeld Bridal also hosted trunk shows for the new collection.¹⁴

Reflecting on the fight, Gutman has told other creatives to read their contracts carefully and learn the business side of their fields. “Artists cannot afford to exist only in the artistry world,” she said, noting that most young designers could not survive a legal battle of this length.¹⁵

1
Business Insider. Bridal Designer Hayley Paige JLM Couture Reach Settlement
2
The Fashion Law. Hayley Paige JLM Settle Social Media Centric Lawsuit
3
Cosmopolitan. Wedding Dress Designer Hayley Paige Legal Saga JLM Couture
4
FindLaw. JLM Couture Inc. v. Gutman
5
The Fashion Law. Hayley Paige and Bridal Company Are at War Over Her Name Instagram Handle
6
CourtListener. JLM Couture Inc. v. Gutman
7
CBS News. Designer Hayley Paige Reintroduces Herself After Regaining Name and Social Media Accounts
8
FindLaw. JLM Couture Inc. v. Gutman, 91 F.4th 91
9
Law360. JLM Couture Proposes $700K Private Ch. 11 Sale to Founder
10
DailyDAC. JLM Couture Inc.
11
Photobook Magazine. She Is Cheval
12
Hayley Paige. Hayley Paige’s Journey Back to Bridal
13
Hayley Paige. A Look Into Twice Upon A Time
14
Kleinfeld Bridal. Hayley Paige Is Back
15
CNBC. How Hayley Paige Rebuilt Bridal Brand After Contract Dispute