Face Coat and Zikel Cosmetics — A Beauty Industry Dispute Unfolding in Real Time

Image Source: Zikel Cosmetics (Instagram)

The Nigerian beauty industry has found itself at the centre of a brewing controversy involving two major players: Face Coat, a skincare and cosmetics brand founded by Geraldine Iheme, and Zikel Cosmetics, a well-known makeup company with a significant influencer marketing presence. Although no formal legal proceedings have commenced, a cease and desist letter was reportedly issued in early July 2025, sparking widespread public interest and raising important questions about branding, product originality, influencer liability, and intellectual property rights. This analysis offers a legal perspective on the emerging dispute.

Timeline of Events

Date	Event
2020	Face Coat is established.
Oct 2021	Face Coat launches Face Coat Butter — a spot/blemish concealer in a small transparent glass jar with a black cover. Tagline: "Effortlessly melts into the skin like butter."
2021–2025	Product gains popularity and becomes a best-seller.
17 June 2025	Zikel Cosmetics still using tube concealers.
25 June 2025	Zikel launches Oma Jay Butter Melt Conceal in a transparent glass container with pink-ish cover. Campaign uses similar tagline. Main influencer: Oma Jay Nneji. Huge campaign ensues.
Post-launch (Late June)	Face Coat is tagged repeatedly in Zikel marketing materials by confused customers or observers.
1 July 2025 (likely)	Cease and desist issued by Face Coat to Zikel and Oma Jay. Face Coat demands product retraction.
2 July 2025	Face Coat states Zikel has 6 days left to comply. That implies the C&D was sent on or around 1 July.
Early July	In the days following, Zikel allegedly modified the wording of its promotional captions and blocked Face Coat and its founder from accessing their official social media accounts. There are also claims that critical comments from customers were removed.

Key Legal Issues at Stake

1. Trademark Infringement (Registered or Unregistered)

The dispute between Face Coat and Zikel Cosmetics centres on whether Zikel’s use of “Butter Melt Conceal” and a similar tagline infringes Face Coat’s rights in “Face Coat Butter” and its own tagline, “Effortlessly melts into the skin like butter.” If Face Coat has registered either as a trademark, it holds the exclusive right to use them in connection with cosmetic products under Nigeria’s Trade Marks Act. Even without registration, it may rely on common law rights through passing off, if it can show long-term use, distinctiveness, and market recognition.

Trademark infringement occurs when a mark identical or confusingly similar to a registered one is used in commerce in a way likely to mislead consumers. In Nigeria, registration is not required to claim rights, but it does strengthen enforcement and grants access to statutory remedies including injunctions, damages, and account of profits. Unregistered marks can still be protected through passing off, but the claimant must prove goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage.

If litigation ensues and Face Coat’s mark is found to be distinctive and recognisable in the market, Zikel’s use of similar branding may amount to infringement or passing off, especially if it exploits Face Coat’s reputation or misleads consumers about product origin.

2. Passing Off

In the absence of formal trademark registration, Face Coat may rely on the doctrine of passing off, which protects unregistered brand elements. To succeed in a passing off claim, the complainant must demonstrate:

• That they have goodwill associated with the product;

• That the other party made a misrepresentation likely to confuse consumers; and

• That this resulted in damage to the brand or sales.

Given the public tagging, alleged confusion, and long-term market presence of Face Coat’s product, these elements may be argued in their favour.

3. Trade Dress and Packaging Similarity

Trade dress refers to the visual appearance of a product or its packaging that indicates its source. In this case, Face Coat’s use of a glass jar with a particular aesthetic may be protectable if it has become distinctive and is associated in the minds of consumers with the Face Coat brand. Even if Zikel uses different colours, similarity in shape, style, and overall presentation could still lead to consumer confusion.

However, trade dress protection is only available if the packaging is non-functional, distinctive, and recognised by consumers as identifying the product’s source. Trade dress claims are generally harder to prove in Nigeria and would require Face Coat to show that customers specifically associate the jar design with its brand and that Zikel’s similar packaging misleads or confuses the market.

4. Influencer Liability

Oma Jay Nneji’s visible association with the “Oma Jay Butter Melt Conceal” product raises key legal concerns around influencer liability. Her name and image are prominently used in the marketing, suggesting that her involvement goes beyond simple endorsement and may extend to co-branding or product development. This deepens her legal exposure if the product is found to infringe Face Coat’s rights or mislead consumers. Under Nigerian law, influencers can be held liable for passing off or unfair competition if their promotion contributes to consumer confusion. They may also face penalties under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) and the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) Act for false or misleading advertising, especially on social media. If any claims made online are deceptive and cause harm to consumers, the Cybercrime Act may also apply.

The extent of Oma Jay’s liability would depend on the nature of her agreement with Zikel. If there is a formal contract, it may clarify her role, whether she acted as a brand ambassador, promoter, or co-creator, and this would influence whether she shares legal responsibility. Regardless, Nigerian influencers are expected to conduct due diligence before promoting products, provide clear disclosures of paid partnerships, and avoid making false or unverifiable claims. Failure to meet these standards can lead to civil liability, where influencers may be required to compensate affected consumers, or criminal liability, which can include fines or prosecution, particularly if they actively participated in deceptive branding or marketing. Even without intent to deceive, liability may still arise if an influencer fails to exercise proper care before associating with a product. In Oma Jay’s case, her naming and branding ties to the product increase the likelihood of shared responsibility if infringement is established.

5. Social Media Conduct and Ethical Advertising

Zikel’s alleged deletion of consumer comments and blocking of Face Coat on social media raises reputational and ethical concerns, especially in the context of transparency and accountability. While such actions may not amount to legal violations on their own, they can damage consumer trust. More importantly, if consumers were misled about the originality or ownership of the product, Zikel could face scrutiny under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) regulations and the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) Act, both of which prohibit false, misleading, or deceptive advertising. Ethical advertising standards require brands to allow fair consumer feedback and provide accurate product representations. Efforts to suppress public criticism, if tied to misleading claims, may be viewed as part of a broader pattern of unfair marketing conduct.

What Happens Next?

Although no litigation has been filed, Face Coat’s cease and desist letter signals a clear intent to enforce its intellectual property rights. If Zikel does not retract the product or make further changes, Face Coat could escalate the matter by filing a trademark infringement or passing off action before the Federal High Court. It may also seek injunctive relief to halt the sale and promotion of the disputed product, and claim damages for reputational harm or loss of sales. Regulatory bodies such as the FCCPC or ARCON may also be petitioned if there are violations of consumer protection or advertising laws. Alternatively, the dispute may be resolved amicably through negotiation or mediation, especially if Zikel is open to rebranding or further differentiating its product.

Industry Takeaways

• Brand protection matters: Skincare and cosmetics brands should consider early trademark registration for product names, taglines, and packaging elements.

• Influencer agreements must be clear: Brands and influencers should ensure their contracts address branding liability, especially when influencers are closely linked to the product identity.

• Transparency in advertising and responsible use of consumer feedback help preserve brand integrity and avoid regulatory backlash.

As this case unfolds, it serves as a live example of the intersection between intellectual property law, influencer marketing, and consumer behaviour in the digital age. Brands must tread carefully, originality, clarity, and compliance are not just legal safeguards but also pillars of trust in a competitive industry.

---------

Disclaimer:

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and reflects the author’s opinion based on publicly available information. It does not constitute legal advice or create any lawyer-client relationship. Readers are encouraged to seek professional legal counsel for advice relating to any specific legal matters.