The Breromi Hair Clique Lawsuit has brought to light a conflict over intellectual property rights in the beauty accessories sector. The dispute involves Breana Askew, owner of the Breromi brand, and competitor Kirsten Owens. The case centers on the invention of a magnetic hair accessory intended for use with textured and loc’d hair. The lawsuit has prompted public discussion about innovation, patent rights, and legal protections for inventors.
Who is Breana Askew
Breana Askew, a Black inventor and entrepreneur, is the founder of Breromi, established in 2023. A self-taught designer with expertise in sewing, 3D modeling, and sculpting, Askew developed the “Hair Clique” in 2024—a magnetic hair accessory designed to secure natural, loc’d, and thick hair types without high tension. The Hair Clique uses two magnetized halves to hold hair in place, either as a low-tension ponytail or as a fashionable accent, such as over space buns. Askew’s design quickly gained popularity in online hair care communities. She maintains detailed documentation and timestamps demonstrating her status as the original inventor, with confirmed development and brand exposure dating back to early 2024.
In mid-2025, Askew reportedly became aware that a similar product, called the Hair Hoop, was being sold by competitor Kirsten Owens reportedly shares close similarities in design and function to the Hair Clique. Owens markets her product to a similar consumer demographic.
Allegations of Copying and Branding
Askew claims she holds documentation and timestamps that support her claim to be the original inventor of the product, with the development process and brand exposure dating back to early 2024. Askew claims that after launching her product, she discovered that Owens had not only produced a similar product but also adopted nearly identical marketing and branding practices. Breromi states that the similarity extends to product descriptions and demonstration videos.
Upon discovering the alleged copying, Breromi issued a cease-and-desist letter to Owens, asserting a patent-pending status for the Hair Clique. Owens responded by asserting her right to market the product and maintained that similar designs had existed prior to Breromi’s launch. Instead of backing down, the dispute escalated when Owens filed a lawsuit against Askew and activist Kiandria Boyce.
Owens sought legal remedies, including an injunction. She claimed that criticism and advocacy against her product, which appeared online, had resulted in harassment and negative attention toward her business. The court granted a partial injunction that prevented Askew and Boyce from certain actions defined as “harassing conduct,” including encouraging others to contact Owens’ business partners. However, the injunction did not fully bar their public expression regarding the case.
Community and Industry Response
Entrepreneur and Activist Kiandria Demone Boyce was drawn to Askew’s story and defended her invention.
The case has attracted significant attention on social media platforms, where users have debated issues of innovation, intellectual property, and the experiences of minority inventors. Fundraising efforts to support Askew’s legal costs have raised over $13,000. Advocacy groups have called for increased scrutiny of legal tactics that may impact underrepresented innovators and for wider media coverage.
According to available documentation, the Hair Clique invention holds a “patent pending” status. Despite this, the lawsuit highlights persistent challenges inventors may face in protecting original work, including legal threats and drawn-out court proceedings. Askew and her supporters have raised questions about the scope of legal protections for minority entrepreneurs launching new products in the beauty sector.
Intellectual Property Issues, Legal Filings and Court Proceedings
The central issue in the Breromi Hair Clique Lawsuit concerns the documentation and recognition of prior art, the process of patent application, and the legal thresholds for proving originality and infringement. Patent-pending status affords some legal leverage, but does not guarantee immediate resolution or immunity from lawsuits. The case demonstrates that even with such documentation, inventors can face substantial legal expenses and reputational challenges when IP rights are contested.
Public court records indicate that the lawsuit between Owens and Askew (and others) was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon in 2025. The case (Owen v. Askew et al, No. 6:2025cv01272) includes requests for injunctions and damages. The plaintiff, Kirsten Owens, requested a preliminary injunction against defendants Breana Askew (doing business as Breromi) and Kiandria Demone Boyce.
On August 7, 2025, Judge Ann L. Aiken issued an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in part. The court ruled partially in Owens’ favor, placing some limits on public advocacy by the defendants but stopping short of a total gag order. As stated in the court’s order, Askew and Boyce were enjoined from “engaging in harassing conduct directed at Plaintiff,” specifically including actions such as filing complaints with the plaintiff’s business partners or encouraging third parties to do so.
According to court documents, Boyce, along with Askew, allegedly took part in a coordinated online campaign that accused the plaintiff, Kursten Owen (also known as Kirsten Owens), of stealing the hair clip design, racism, and selling counterfeit products. The court records state that Boyce’s involvement included encouraging others to file complaints with the plaintiff’s business partners and to report her online stores as fraudulent.
Askew maintains that her documented work on the Hair Clique predates the launch of the Hair Hoop. The outcome of the case remains pending, and both parties continue to present their cases in the public sphere as well as in court.
Fundraising and Community Support
Askew launched a GoFundMe campaign titled “Protect Black Creators: Support My Legal Battle.” According to the campaign’s description, the funds are intended to help cover legal defense costs and patent fees. Askew describes facing significant online criticism and stress as the dispute continues.
Supporters argue the issue extends beyond this case and highlights a recurring pattern in which minority innovators struggle to protect unique products from appropriation by larger or more resourced competitors. Commentators have called for more robust intellectual property protections and wider attention from business and legal media.
Breromi Hair Clique Lawsuit Sheds Light on Ongoing IP Challenges for Black Innovators
The Breromi Hair Clique Lawsuit has highlighted a legal and commercial conflict surrounding an invention in the beauty accessory industry. The case involves competing claims of innovation, documentation of prior art, and differing arguments about the originality of design. Legal proceedings are ongoing. The ultimate resolution may have implications for how inventors and entrepreneurs use the legal system to protect intellectual property in highly competitive markets. The dispute remains under active litigation, with further hearings and rulings expected.
This case also draws attention to the broader challenges faced by Black innovators, who continue to confront issues of IP theft and appropriation despite efforts to secure and document original work. Such disputes underscore persistent barriers in accessing effective legal protection and navigating costly litigation. The outcome of this lawsuit may influence future approaches to intellectual property defense and reinforce the need for more robust support systems to safeguard the contributions of underrepresented inventors.
