Summit sues to stop sale of Bella Swan jacket

twilight-bella-jacketImage Credit: Twilight: Deana Newcomb; Inset: BB DakotaSummit Entertainment, the studio behind the Twilight franchise, has filed a lawsuit against BB Dakota claiming copyright and trademark infringement because the label insists upon advertising one of its jackets (pictured) as “JACKET SEEN IN TWILIGHT.” According to The Hollywood Reporter, in their lawsuit, “Summit seeks an injunction against further sale of the item, all profits earned from the jacket, and — the horror! — it wants B.B. Dakota to ‘deliver to Summit for destruction all Bella Jackets.'” (In a statement to EW, Gloria Brandes, BB Dakota owner/designer, says, “We are working to amicably settle the situation with Summit.”)

In my opinion, Summit at least had the right to ask the designer to spell Bella Swan’s name correctly in the jacket’s description on its site: “Bella Swann [sic] wears this jacket in Twilight and scores the hottest vampire in high school, and so can you!” But the fact is, the jacket existed before Kristen Stewart wore it in the first film, directed by Catherine Hardwicke. In fact, that movie’s costume designer, Wendy Chuck, detailed for EW just how it came to be in the picture: ”I was planning to use the brown hoodie for that sequence, but the director of photography hated the fact that [Stewart’s] hair and the jacket were both brown and felt she got lost in it,” Chuck told us. So, she made a last-minute run to outlet store Nordstrom Rack to hunt for a replacement. ”I literally brought that blue one on set just before they rolled cameras. Then Catherine said, ‘Wendy saved the day!’ That made me a hero.”

Luckily, Edward’s pea coat was one of a kind.

What do you think of the suit, PopWatchers?

Comments (24 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 2
  • Brett

    They can be enjoined from directly linking the jacket to the movies in their advertising, but Summit has no legal right to prevent the company from selling the jackets.

    • Brenda Barrett


  • petuniafromhell

    They should sue Rob Pattinson for bad acting.

    • Ashleigh

      Hear, hear.

    • Miss Talk

      Or they should sue Kristen Stewart for having chosen a wig over a weave in Eclipse. We’ve only got the trailers so far but Bella’s hair looks atrocious and distracting.

      • dee

        Wait, SHE’S the one who chose to do the wig and not a weave? Giiiiiiirl…..

        I swear, for a movie where they could probably afford to splurge a little, these people have the worst looking wigs I’ve ever seen in a movie. I feel kinda bad for the guy who plays Jasper. But not that bad, because I hate Twilight, and the worse the movie looks, the funnier I think it is. lol

      • AshleyBrooke

        It’s a close second to the atrocity that was Hayden’s wig on Heroes in Season 3.

  • eric

    This is weak on Summit’s part. They bought the jacket from the store. Sure they can ask that the company stops associating with the movie but to ask for the destruction of a jacket that pre-existed the movie. Really?!?

  • Amanda

    Ugh, Scummit – can’t a jacket be a jacket?

  • Kellie

    This is really getting out of hand. There’s a story behind a fairly average JACKET and how it came to be in the movie? Really?

    • Ben

      Everything in Twilight is sacred and has a story behind it! Didn’t you know? Tune in next week, when they’ll be discussing how you too can use the same hair gel as the Adonis-like Edward Cullen. lol

  • SerenityBlue

    If Summit manages to get a judge to order that the jackets should be destroyed I will lose what little faith I have left in our justice system. Yes, order them to stop using the movie’s name in advertising if you must, but in no way should they be able to completely do away with a jacket line that was around well before the movies.

  • Heather2

    Really Summit? Really? You can do this stupidity but you can’t get a new screenwriter?

    • Julie

      Or wigs that don’t look like they’ve been sitting on the floor of someone’s closet for two years. lol

  • Kylie

    Seriously? Because they went out to a store and bought the jacket for a movie, the entire line of jackets is now theirs? One of my friend’s was wearing a Hollister shirt when we filmed our media project last year, does that mean I’m entitled to the line? I can understand now wanting the Twilight name on the jackets but claiming that the company can never sell one of their jackets, which they never asked to be apart of the movie, is just retarded.

    • Ben

      I agree. You can’t ask a company to fork over all their earnings and the remainder of their product to be destroyed, if they’re the ones who actually MADE the product to begin with. The jacket existed before Twilight did. Though they’ll probably have to stop using Twilight to market it.

      Whatever. It’s an ugly jacket anyway.

  • ObiHave

    The jacket’s ugly anyway. Let ‘em sell it. It’ll end up in a Thrift Store or for a quarter at a garage sale in a few years and no one will care or want it.

  • Tammy

    The suit will be thrown out. especially since it was bought off the rack from a department store. If BB Dakota is the orginal manufacture of the jacket than Summit looks like the idiot.

  • Hannah

    “What do you think of the suit, PopWatchers?”
    I think it’s hilarious how you people keep dredging up non-news to meet your Twilight quotas. You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.
    I think the lawsuit’s hilarious. If Summit had asked the company to design that jacket specifically for the movie as a one-of-a-kind original, then fine. But it was bought off the rack and was part of an already-existing line. So no, Summit isn’t within their right to own the line or destroy merchandise.
    And frankly, I’m not even sure that they can tell the company to take down the Twilight-related text, either. If that IS the jacket she wore in the movie, then it’s not false advertisement, and I’d argue that it’s just stating a fact, not implying an endorsement (although, isn’t the fact that the costume designer selected the jacket enough of an endorsement?).
    And I’ll say what I suspect a lot of people are thinking: The jacket itself is completely ordinary looking and if it hadn’t been featured in the film, no one would look twice at it. It’s just a bunch of silly girls thinking that if they wear a jacket, they can be like Bella. As if she wasn’t enough of a blank slate as it was…

  • Cindi

    Come on Summit, sue to stop using any reference to Twilight, Bella, Edward or the series. You are making enough off this series that you don’t need to be petty. The jacket came off the rack. Stop acting like spoiled little brats. Stop them from using the name Twilight, but to actually ask them to destroy jackets is insane.

  • Jade

    Here is my question? Did Summit get permission to use the jacket in their film from someone at BB Dakota. Because technically BB Dakota could sue them for using the jacket without permission. I have to get clearances for the most crazy stuff when we do advertising, from shoes (even though you can’t see the logo), to soda cans, to handbags. Especially handbags. If BB Dakota is the only one making the jacket, and they can prove it’s an original design for the line they could ask for royalties on every shot that has Bella wearing the jacket. I wonder who will win this fight.

  • kit

    I own the jacket in question and bought it after BB Dakota re-released it (and proceeded to not wear it for two months because of the absurd craze associated with it). The post-TwilightOMGZ!!! jackets came with a hang tag that was a promotional photo from the movie of the Bella character wearing the coat. The tag may also have had Summit’s version of the Twilight logo on it but I can’t remember. That’s the only reason I think Summit may have .000001% justification in feeling pissed over lost profit — because, you know, they are so damn poor. I really hope that Summit’s defense lawyers felt some iota of embarrassment for participating in such a ridiculous lawsuit. What are they going to do, burn all of the remaining jackets in holy effigy?

  • tbc

    I heard that they were going to sue anyone holding an apple in their hands in ANY way that resembled the Twilight book cover, because it’s now trademarked. There are scouts at random produce aisles to make sure no one holds an apple in both hands or they will be sued. You have been warned.

Page: 1 2
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos


From Our Partners

TV Recaps

Powered by VIP