Bliss Collection, LLC v. Latham Companies, LLC, 82 F.4th 499

Bliss Collection ("bella bliss") sells children’s clothing with a stylized, stitched lowercase "b" logo and a signature light‑blue color ("bliss Blue"); Latham Companies ("little english") was founded by a former Bliss co‑founder and sells competing children’s clothing.
Bliss owns three registered trademarks for the stylized lowercase "b" and had a pending application (since later registered) for the stitched "b" plus the words "bella bliss" in light blue.
Bliss alleged Latham altered its logos, website color, and product designs to mimic Bliss, causing consumer confusion, and sued for federal copyright, trademark, trade dress, false designation, unfair competition, and Kentucky common‑law claims.
The district court dismissed Bliss’s federal copyright and trade dress claims, later dismissed the remaining claims on reconsideration, and awarded Latham fees only for the copyright claim; it denied fees for the trademark and trade dress claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed dismissal of Bliss’s federal trademark claim and Kentucky common‑law trademark claim, affirmed dismissal of the federal trade dress claim, and affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees under § 1117(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal trademark infringement (Lanham Act §§ 1114/1125)	Bliss: Latham’s revised logos and use of bliss Blue create likelihood of consumer confusion; Bliss’s registered and unregistered marks are protectable.	Latham: Logos are dissimilar; no likelihood of confusion; dismissal appropriate.	Reversed dismissal — Bliss plausibly pleaded likelihood of confusion under the Frisch factors; claim proceeds.
Federal trade dress infringement	Bliss: specific clothing designs and bliss Blue trade dress are distinctive and nonfunctional.	Latham: designs and color are functional or insufficiently pled as nonfunctional/without secondary meaning.	Affirmed dismissal — Bliss failed to plead nonfunctionality/secondary meaning for asserted trade dresses, including color alone.
Kentucky common‑law trademark infringement	Bliss: state law claim uses same likelihood‑of‑confusion test as Lanham Act; succeeds if federal trademark claim stands.	Latham: same defenses as to federal claim.	Reversed dismissal — because federal trademark claim survives, the parallel Kentucky claim also survives.
Attorney’s fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)	Latham: prevailing defendant entitled to fees because Bliss’s trademark and trade dress claims were meritless.	Bliss: claims were filed in good faith and not exceptionally meritless; fees unwarranted.	Affirmed denial of fees — district court did not abuse discretion; claims were not "exceptional" under Octane Fitness.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim).
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints).
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000) (secondary meaning requirement for trade dress product design).
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014) (definition of "exceptional" for fee awards under § 1117).
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) (color can be trademarked but functionality/non‑distinctiveness limits protection).
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001) (functionality doctrine).
Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr., 109 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 1997) (likelihood of confusion and Frisch factors).
Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) (dismissal at pleading stage rare in trademark cases).
Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Elby’s Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc., 670 F.2d 642 (6th Cir. 1982) (Frisch factors framework).
Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012) (application of Frisch factors to likelihood of confusion).