Commercial Parasitism: The Procedural Record of The Devil Wears Prada 2 Partner Activations.
Introduction: Trade vs. Narrative Promotion
This record serves to clarify the distinction between cinematic storytelling and global commercial trade. The Walt Disney Company and 20th Century Studios have asserted that their commercial activations are protected as “plot points” originating from a fictional narrative. We present the following counter-analysis regarding the Chain of Title and market seniority:
- The Narrative/Commercial Wall: There is an established legal wall between Narrative Investment (the production of a fictional film) and Commercial Investment (the sale of physical goods, cosmetics, and spirits).
- The “Market Entry” Violation: For two decades, the “Runway” name existed strictly within the confines of fiction—a space that required no commercial clearance because it did not compete in the real-world market.
- The Investment Fallacy: While the studio invested in a cinematic franchise, RUNWAY MAGAZINE® invested in a real-world Trade Name and infrastructure for the last 30 years.
- Trespassing into Trade: In 2026, the studio moved from narrative depiction into the sale of physical goods. By doing so, they are no longer “protecting a movie”; they are trespassing into a regulated marketplace to grant commercial partners an unauthorized shortcut into the luxury sector.
- The Logic of Fiction: A fictional “reservation” does not exist. The studio cannot claim they “invested” in a brand they never actually traded until 2026. You cannot “free-ride” on a market entry that didn’t happen for 20 years.
Fame in fiction does not grant a retroactive monopoly over real-world commerce. While the studio deals in Fiction, RUNWAY MAGAZINE® has been in Trade for years—selling physical magazines, merchandise, and branded tote bags, protected by all necessary legal frameworks, trademarks and copyrights. The studio, conversely, has been engaged in Fiction. Studio started to sell our brand identity in 2026. No prior use in commerce has been recorded.
The Global “Trade Name” Shield
1. The International Foundation (The Paris Convention) Under Article 8 of the Paris Convention (valid throughout Europe, UK, and the USA), a trade name is protected based on its existence and reputation in trade, regardless of the celebrity status of a fictional counterpart.
2. The United States Protection (The Lanham Act) Under 15 U.S. Code § 1126 (Section 44 of the Lanham Act), the US explicitly codified Article 8 of the Paris Convention. The law states:
“Trade names or commercial names… shall be protected without the obligation of filing or registration whether or not they form parts of marks.”
3. The United Kingdom Protection (Trade Marks Act 1994) In the UK, the “Section 44” equivalent is found in Section 2(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. It explicitly protects you even if you haven’t finished your registration:
“No proceedings lie to prevent or recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trade mark as such; but nothing in this Act affects the law relating to passing off.”
✔ Rogers protects expressive works
✔ Rogers protects advertising of expressive works
❌ Rogers does NOT protect commercial exploitation
❌ Rogers does NOT protect partner promotions
❌ Rogers does NOT protect merchandising
❌ Rogers does NOT protect consumer products
❌ Rogers does NOT protect retail décor
❌ Rogers does NOT protect cosmetics, alcohol, fashion campaigns
❌ Rogers does NOT protect fake magazines used as commercial props
❌ NOT the advertising of real‑world products
❌ NOT partner promotions
❌ NOT cosmetics campaigns
❌ NOT alcohol promotions
❌ NOT retail décor
❌ NOT fake magazines used to sell consumer goods
❌ NOT cross‑brand merchandising
❌ NOT co‑branded influencer content
❌ NOT product packaging
❌ NOT “brand partnerships”
❌ NOT “movie tie‑ins”
❌ NOT “IP activations”
The Ninth Circuit’s protection evaporates the moment the fictional brand is used to sell anything other than the expressive work itself.
ROGERS TEST: FICTION VS. REALITY. Why the Rogers Test Collapses When a Fictional Prop Enters Real‑World Commerce
Message of Lady Gaga from the New York Premiere of the Devil Wears Prada 2 addressed to all commercial partners
Lady Gaga at the New York Premiere of the Devil Wears Prada 2 addressed a message to all commercial partners: “Enjoy your f… dough”. What does it mean to you?
And what happened at the London European Premiere of the Devil Wears Prada 2? Where was Lady Gaga? Boycotted the red carpet? Why?
UNAUTHORIZED Commercial Use
The Cease and Desist Notice identifies a coordinated pattern of unauthorized commercial use in which the RUNWAY MAGAZINE® name, masthead, likeness, or editorial identity was incorporated into outward‑facing promotional materials developed by multiple commercial partners participating in campaigns for The Devil Wears Prada 2. These uses were not confined to internal film props or narrative depiction; they were deployed in product advertising, retail merchandise, and partner‑driven promotional assets created independently of the film’s production. The unauthorized uses include:
Mercedes‑Benz Maybach
Mercedes‑Benz Maybach released promotional materials featuring fabricated RUNWAY MAGAZINE® covers and branded visuals as part of its participation in The Devil Wears Prada 2 campaign. These materials were used in outward‑facing automotive advertising and partner‑driven promotional channels without authorization.
Used here for reporting and documentation purposes.
Walmart / Scoop / Brandon Maxwell
RUNWAY MAGAZINE® has identified unauthorized commercial use of its registered trade name in the Walmart / Scoop / Brandon Maxwell fashion popup located in SoHo, New York.
Multiple fabricated “RUNWAY” magazines were displayed as décor but were in fact priced at $7.99, and barcoded as consumer goods. These items reproduced the RUNWAY trade name in a manner likely to cause confusion and were presented as part of Walmart/Scoop/Brandon Maxwell’s branded retail environment.
No permission, license, or consultation was ever requested or granted.
Unauthorized Digital Replication — Walmart Realm (Web3 Environment)
In addition to the physical popup, Walmart deployed an immersive Web3 “Walmart Realm” experience containing digital replicas of the same fabricated “RUNWAY” magazines. These digital items remain publicly accessible and are presented as part of Walmart’s branded interactive environment.
This constitutes unauthorized digital distribution and public display of materials incorporating the RUNWAY MAGAZINE® trade name.
Trademark Misuse and Commercial Exploitation
The SoHo popup and the Walmart Realm environment resulted in:
- unauthorized commercial use of the RUNWAY MAGAZINE® trade name
- retail offering of fabricated “RUNWAY” magazines at a unit price of $7.99 US/CAN
- misrepresentation of RUNWAY MAGAZINE®’s trade name as part of Walmart/Scoop/Brandon Maxwell’s branded assets
- digital replication and display of fabricated “RUNWAY” magazines in a Web3 environment
- use of the RUNWAY trade name inside a branded commercial experience – online store
- consumer‑facing confusion regarding affiliation, endorsement, or licensing
L’Oréal Paris
L’Oréal Paris incorporated stacks of fabricated “Runway Magazine” issues into its global cosmetics campaign, using the fake magazines as physical product display surfaces and as integrated visual elements within advertising tied to The Devil Wears Prada 2. The brand produced and circulated these fabricated RUNWAY MAGAZINE® materials across press releases, social media, paid media, and partner‑owned channels without authorization from RUNWAY MAGAZINE®.
Lancôme (L’Oréal Group)
Lancôme, a subsidiary of L’Oréal Group, incorporated three self‑made “Runway Magazine” issues into promotional materials associated with The Devil Wears Prada 2, using fabricated covers as set elements and visual props without authorization from RUNWAY MAGAZINE®. In addition to the unauthorized magazine likeness, Lancôme produced a wall‑mounted promotional display for its New Longevity MD Lancôme campaign featuring a pink background with a white “Runway” masthead, a distinctive visual combination that RUNWAY MAGAZINE® has used consistently for more than a decade across its applications, digital platforms, and editorial branding. Lancôme’s decision to reproduce RUNWAY MAGAZINE®’s established editorial identity—rather than using the red/black/white palette associated with The Devil Wears Prada franchise—constitutes a direct appropriation of RUNWAY MAGAZINE®’s editorial identity for commercial gain. The resulting assets were used in outward‑facing beauty promotions and distributed across partner‑owned channels without authorization from RUNWAY MAGAZINE®.
TRESemmé by Unilever
TRESemmé, a Unilever brand, incorporated fabricated “Runway Magazine” covers as branded props in its promotional videos, with models holding the made‑up magazines and haircare products placed on top of them. These fabricated materials were produced and used under a license from the film’s production, which authorized TRESemmé to create and deploy fake “Runway Magazine” issues for commercial advertising. The resulting assets were used in outward‑facing haircare promotions and distributed across partner‑owned channels without authorization from RUNWAY MAGAZINE®.
Used here for reporting and documentation purposes.
Grey Goose Vodka by Bacardi
Grey Goose used fabricated “Runway Magazine” covers and stacks of made‑up magazines throughout its global vodka campaign, including scenes where the fake magazine was held by Heidi Klum or used as a physical display surface for vodka bottles and cocktail presentations. These fabricated materials were produced and deployed under a license from The Devil Wears Prada 2 franchise, which authorized Grey Goose to create and use fake “Runway Magazine” issues as branded props and product stands. The resulting assets were circulated in outward‑facing commercial advertising and partner content without authorization from RUNWAY MAGAZINE®.
Samsung Runway Cam
Samsung, as a promotional partner for The Devil Wears Prada 2, released a series of Runway Cam videos featuring Helen J. Shen and multiple participants holding fabricated “Runway Magazine” issues. These fabricated magazines were used as recurring props to demonstrate Samsung’s new camera and Circle‑to‑Search features, despite Samsung having no authorization to reproduce or reference RUNWAY MAGAZINE® brand. The resulting assets circulated across Samsung’s social channels and partner platforms, leveraging RUNWAY MAGAZINE®’s editorial identity to promote device capabilities without permission.
Used here for reporting and documentation purposes.
Used here for reporting and documentation purposes.
Diet Coke
Diet Coke, as a promotional partner for The Devil Wears Prada 2, incorporated fabricated “Runway Magazine” issues into its outward‑facing publicity materials. These fabricated magazines were used as visual props in Diet Coke promotional assets tied to the film partnership, despite Diet Coke having no authorization to reproduce, reference, or depict the RUNWAY MAGAZINE® brand in any commercial context. The resulting materials circulated across Diet Coke’s branded channels and partner platforms, leveraging RUNWAY MAGAZINE®’s editorial identity to reinforce the promotional narrative without permission.
Mad Engine / Disney Licensed Apparel (Target & Primark)
Mad Engine manufactured licensed Disney apparel for The Devil Wears Prada 2 incorporating the identical RUNWAY MAGAZINE® trade name on hoodies, fleece sweatshirts, and related garments distributed through Target, Primark, and online marketplaces. These items reproduced the RUNWAY MAGAZINE® name and fabricated masthead without authorization and remained available for sale for more than two months following formal notice.
Mad Engine asserted that the use of the RUNWAY MAGAZINE® trade name was merely “ORNAMENTAL” and “DECORATION.” This position is not only legally untenable — it is commercially absurd. RUNWAY MAGAZINE® is a well‑known international media brand with independent commercial significance. The identical use of a protected trade name on licensed Disney merchandise is not ornamentation; it is commercial exploitation that directly implies source, endorsement, and affiliation. No company would tolerate its own trade name being placed on apparel as “decoration,” and RUNWAY MAGAZINE® is no exception.
Copyright Infringement – Unauthorized Use of the Copyrighted RUNWAY MAGAZINE® Logo by Disney / 20th Century Studios
The Eudora Runway Magazine Palette packaging does not use the fictional cinematic prop logo from The Devil Wears Prada (cropped “A”, no “MAGAZINE” descriptor, different structure). Instead, it reproduces the real, copyrighted RUNWAY MAGAZINE® logo, specifically:
- the distinctive rising “A” unique to the RUNWAY MAGAZINE® typographic signature
- the exact proportional layout of the registered mark
- the “MAGAZINE” descriptor
- the removal of the ® symbol
- a composition identical to the copyrighted graphic work published on Wikidata and runwaymagazines.com
This is copyright infringement and Disney’s unauthorized use copyrighted RUNWAY MAGAZINE® logo on a commercial product.
Used here for reporting and documentation purposes.
Unauthorized Licensing and False Attribution
The Eudora Runway Magazine Palette is marketed as a Disney‑licensed item, priced at $234.99, which results in:
- commercial distribution of a copyrighted work Disney does not own
- false attribution of authorship to Disney/20th Century Studios
- presentation of RUNWAY MAGAZINE®’s copyrighted identity (logo) as part of Disney’s IP portfolio
The Tilibra “Runway” Notebook – Copyright Infringement & Commercial Parasitism
Tilibra, under a Disney‑licensed “The Devil Wears Prada” stationery line, released the “Runway” 160‑Sheet College Ruled Hardcover Notebook and related spiral notebooks using the RUNWAY identity as a central commercial design element. Although Tilibra removed the descriptor “MAGAZINE” from the logo, the notebooks still reproduce the distinctive rising “A” and typographic structure sourced directly from our copyrighted RUNWAY MAGAZINE® logo published on Wikidata and runwaymagazines.com.
Removing one word does not erase infringement. The rising “A” is a proprietary graphic element — a protected artistic signature of our brand — and its reproduction on licensed Disney merchandise constitutes copyright infringement and commercial parasitism of an international protected media identity.
These notebooks are marketed as official franchise merchandise, sold through mainstream retail and online channels, and positioned as part of Disney’s IP‑based consumer product ecosystem. By deploying our copyrighted logo structure on physical goods without authorization, Tilibra and Disney are monetizing the visual equity of a real media brand they do not own.
RUNWAY MAGAZINE® expressly qualifies this conduct as unauthorized commercial use, copyright infringement, and commercial parasitism.
Used here for reporting and documentation purposes.
RUNWAY MAGAZINE® Logo COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT and Unauthorized commercial Use
Furthermore, unauthorized use of copyrighted logo (sourced from Wikidata) on cosmetic boxes, alongside Disney / 20th Century Studios cinema theater photo booths featuring false advertising by Mercedes and L’Oréal, proves this is not ‘artistic set dressing,’ but a coordinated act of commercial parasitism designed to misappropriate our brand equity in a live market.
As just one of many documented examples of Disney’s unauthorized appropriation of the copyrighted RUNWAY MAGAZINE® logo, which constitutes another copyright infringement (logo sourced from our Wikidata):
Post Notice Continuation of Use
Across these campaigns, the RUNWAY MAGAZINE® masthead, self-made magazines were licensed by Disney to commercial partners as their property, and used in product‑driven advertising, retail merchandise, and promotional materials created and distributed by external partners. These authorizations were issued for commercial activity connected to Mercedes‑Benz Maybach, L’Oréal Paris, Unilever/TRESemmé, Grey Goose, and extended to apparel, accessories, sweets, novelty items, and other consumer products. The use of the masthead in these contexts was outward‑facing and commercial in nature, materially distinct from any internal prop use or narrative depiction within the film.
Commercial materials, partner campaigns, and derivative assets continued to be developed and sold after formal CEASE AND DESIST notice was issued to Disney and 20th Century Studio, and Formal Legal Notice to its partners March 16, 2026, despite explicit communication that any use of the RUNWAY MAGAZINE® identity required authorization.
Informational Notice
Disney’s actions—including the unauthorized use of the RUNWAY MAGAZINE® trade name and logo in retail environments, licensed products, digital commerce, and partner advertising—raise serious concerns involving:
- trade‑name violations
- trademark infringement (registrations in U.S. and Europe)
- copyright infringement
- commercial parasitism
- misrepresentation to partners
- attempts to suppress lawful journalism
The record demonstrates a consistent pattern of conduct throughout the management of this project and the associated partner campaigns—ranging from unauthorized commercial use of our identity, to misrepresentations of legal rights, to attempts to suppress protected press documentation.
Real‑World Commerce Standards
A. Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products (U.S. Supreme Court)
The Court held that even when a use is expressive or humorous, the moment a mark functions as a source identifier in commerce, standard infringement laws apply. This means the Rogers Test does not protect real‑world retail activations, co‑promotions, or product marketing.
B. The “Pepsi Perfect” Precedent (Universal / Back to the Future II)
When Universal sought to release the fictional “Pepsi Perfect” into the real world, it did not rely on “artistic expression.” It executed a formal commercial licensing agreement with PepsiCo.
Disney’s assumption that it can bypass this step with RUNWAY MAGAZINE® by labeling retail activations is inconsistent with trade and intellectual property laws, with established industry practice.
When a corporation dismisses legal boundaries, asserts rights it does not possess, and attempts to silence the press, it reveals not an isolated misunderstanding but a posture. The events in this case reflect a pattern of conduct observed throughout the management of this project and the campaigns associated with it.
READ: Record of Disney & 20th Century Procedural Misconduct
Message from Eleonora de Gray, Editor-in-Chief of RUNWAY MAGAZINE:
To the “legal talents” at Disney / 20th Century Studios: any further legal threats, or social media stalking by studio directed at me or our media will be immediately published on RUNWAY MAGAZINE digital platform, and reported to the International Associations of Journalists. My credentials: International Association of Journalists ID W73133, and the American Association of Journalists ID C553-3.
Furthermore, let’s clarify a point of professional etiquette: while our staff at our offices may not feel the need to flaunt a Bar Number, they — and our entire operation — are protected under the umbrella of these international journalistic associations and the legal safeguards of a registered media organization.
This publication has been met with legal threats from representatives of Disney / 20th Century Studios demanding its removal: “Disney will not hesitate to take legal action against Ms. de Gray, both personally and through her companies, including, but not limited to, by filing a lawsuit for copyright and trademark infringement, tortious interference, defamation, false association, disparagement, parasitism, and/or unfair competition.”
To note: Disney DOES NOT OWN RUNWAY / RUNWAY MAGAZINE trademarks, DOES NOT HAVE COMMERCIAL USE until 2026, and CANNOT APPROPRIATE OUR IDENTITY.
Furthermore, Disney’s claims rely on factually corrupted records and fabricated documents originating from an individual convicted in U.S. federal court (Case No. 2:22-cr-00276), constituting a pattern of willful misinformation and unauthorized commercial use across global campaigns (L’Oréal, Mercedes-Benz, Target, Walmart, etc).
RUNWAY MAGAZINE® operates under the internationally recognized protections for Freedom of Expression, Media Freedom, and the Safety of Journalists as affirmed in Article 11 of the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen (1789), Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), the Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protecting editorial commentary and satire, UNESCO’s standards for the independence and safety of the press, and the protections against abusive litigation (SLAPP) afforded by the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (2024/1069).
Any effort to restrict, suppress, or unduly pressure a media outlet in the exercise of its journalistic functions stands in tension with these binding standards and the public‑interest role of the press.
RUNWAY MAGAZINE® is an internationally distributed fashion publication founded in 1995 in New York and headquartered in Paris since 2004. The brand is protected under international trademark frameworks, including active WIPO registrations.
RUNWAY MAGAZINE® operates under the French activity code Édition de revues et périodiques (5814Z) and is governed by the Journalistes (1480) collective agreement.
Copyright Notice & Prohibition on Derivative Works
The procedural history, narrative description, editorial analysis, and all accompanying materials contained in this Cease and Desist Notice constitute original copyrighted content owned exclusively by RUNWAY MAGAZINE®.
This document, including its chronology of events, legal assessments, and descriptive elements, is protected under international copyright law, including but not limited to the Berne Convention, TRIPS Agreement, and applicable U.S. and EU statutes.
No portion of this document may be reproduced, adapted, dramatized, fictionalized, or used as the basis for any film, television production, streaming content, scripted series, documentary, or other derivative work without the express written authorization of RUNWAY MAGAZINE®.
Any unauthorized use, including the development of derivative narratives or audiovisual adaptations based on the events, descriptions, or editorial content herein, will constitute copyright infringement, misappropriation, and violation of moral rights.
RUNWAY MAGAZINE® expressly reserves all rights and remedies.
