11th Circuit Revives Trademark Dispute Over Frida Kahlo's Legacy

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently reversed a lower court's dismissal of a trademark and tortious interference lawsuit involving one of the most recognizable names in art history. In Frida Kahlo Corporation v. Romeo Pinedo, the court ruled on April 17, 2026, that the case could proceed in a Florida federal court, finding that the defendants' alleged conduct, specifically sending threatening cease-and-desist letters into Florida, was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. The ruling reopens a complex dispute over who controls the commercial rights to Frida Kahlo's name and image, and it carries important lessons for any business owner navigating trademark licensing or brand partnerships.

The Dispute Over Kahlo's Legacy

Frida Kahlo Corporation claims to hold the trademark rights to the legendary Mexican artist's name and image. The company and its affiliated entity, Frida Kahlo Investments, entered into business relationships with U.S. companies to produce branded merchandise, including phone covers, and to organize a multi-city exhibition featuring Kahlo's work and legacy. Those plans were disrupted when Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo, Kahlo's grand-niece, and her Mexican corporation allegedly sent cease-and-desist letters to the Corporation's business partners in Florida. The letters demanded that the partners withdraw from the projects within seven days, claiming that Romeo Pinedo held the true rights to the Kahlo brand. The Frida Kahlo Corporation filed suit in Florida, alleging tortious interference with its business relationships and violations of the Lanham Act.

What the Court Decided

The lower court had dismissed the case, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they were based in Mexico and did not have sufficient contact with Florida. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. The appellate court found that the cease-and-desist letters were specifically directed at business relationships in Florida, that the alleged harm occurred in Florida, and that the defendants should have reasonably anticipated being brought into a Florida court based on those actions. The court also rejected the argument that Romeo Pinedo was shielded from personal jurisdiction because she acted through a corporate entity. Instead, the court found that she had acted in her individual capacity when sending the letters, making the corporate shield doctrine inapplicable. The case will now return to the district court, where the substantive trademark and tortious interference claims will be litigated on the merits.

Key Takeaway for Business Owners

This case highlights the very real risks that can arise from aggressive trademark enforcement tactics. Sending cease-and-desist letters is a standard tool in intellectual property disputes, but when those letters contain false or misleading claims about trademark ownership, they can form the basis of a tortious interference lawsuit. The Eleventh Circuit's ruling makes clear that such letters, even when sent from another country, can subject the sender to personal jurisdiction in the state where the harm is felt. For business owners, the practical lesson is twofold. First, if you receive a cease-and-desist letter challenging your use of a brand or trademark, do not assume the sender's claims are accurate. Consult with a trademark attorney to evaluate whether the sender actually holds the rights they claim to own. Second, if you are the one sending cease-and-desist letters, make sure your claims of trademark ownership are well supported before you put them in writing. Overstating your rights or making false claims can expose you to liability, not just in your home jurisdiction, but in any state where your letters cause harm.

Want to learn more about protecting your brand or responding to a trademark dispute? Schedule a free consultation with Diorio IP Law Group to discuss your options.