A federal intellectual property dispute over a magnetic hair accessory has drawn widespread attention to the challenges minority entrepreneurs face in protecting their inventions.
The Breromi Hair Clique Lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Owen v. Askew et al, No. 6:2025cv01272), pits inventor Breana Askew, founder of the Breromi brand, against competitor Kirsten Owens, who markets a similar product called the “Hair Hoop.”
At the center of the dispute is Askew’s “Hair Clique”, a magnetic accessory designed in 2024 for securing natural, loc’d, and textured hair without tension. Askew, a self-taught designer skilled in sewing, 3D modeling, and sculpting, maintains that she developed the original design and holds detailed documentation to support her claim. She launched her brand Breromi in 2023, introducing the Hair Clique to natural hair care communities online in early 2024.
Owens, however, disputes Askew’s originality and claims her own right to market a nearly identical product. She filed suit seeking injunctions and damages, alleging harassment from Askew and activist Kiandria Demone Boyce, who publicly accused Owens of copying the invention.
Court Rulings and Ongoing Proceedings
On August 7, 2025, Judge Ann L. Aiken issued a partial preliminary injunction. The court barred Askew and Boyce from engaging in “harassing conduct,” including filing complaints with Owens’ business partners or encouraging others to do so, but stopped short of issuing a full gag order.
According to court records, Owens alleged that Askew and Boyce coordinated an online campaign accusing her of theft, racism, and counterfeiting, which led to reputational harm and strained business relationships. Askew continues to argue that her documentation and patent-pending status establish her as the original creator.
The case remains active, with further hearings expected.
Intellectual Property Issues at Stake
The lawsuit underscores three central legal questions:
- Prior Art and Originality — Whether Askew’s documentation and timestamps sufficiently establish her as the first inventor.
- Patent-Pending Protection — While Askew has applied for a patent, “patent pending” status provides limited leverage until a patent is granted.
- Speech vs. Harassment — The partial injunction highlights the court’s attempt to balance Owens’ claims of targeted harassment against the defendants’ right to public advocacy.
Legal experts note that IP disputes in emerging consumer markets often hinge on expensive, drawn-out proceedings. For minority entrepreneurs, the financial burden of defending original work can be a significant barrier, even with community support.
Community Response
Askew’s case has galvanized support across social media, where debates about innovation, appropriation, and racial equity in intellectual property law continue. A GoFundMe campaign titled “Protect Black Creators: Support My Legal Battle” has raised more than $13,000 to offset legal fees and patent costs.
Advocacy groups and commentators argue the dispute illustrates systemic barriers facing Black inventors, who often lack access to the same resources or protections as larger competitors. Calls for stronger safeguards in the IP system have intensified as the lawsuit progresses.
Broader Implications
The Breromi Hair Clique Lawsuit highlights the difficulties inventors face in protecting original work, especially in industries where new products can be quickly replicated.
For underrepresented entrepreneurs, the stakes are even higher: the outcome could shape not only the future of Askew’s invention but also broader perceptions of equity and access in intellectual property law.
