Eastland Music Group, LLC v. Lionsgate Entertainment, Inc.
707 F.3d 869
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Eastland Music Group owns the trademark PHIFTY-50 and claims rights in 50/50; sued Lionsgate and Summit for using 50/50 as a film title (2011).
- District court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) as the title descriptive of the film’s cancer-survival theme.
- Eastland argues the title issue is a defense, not an element, and requests summary judgment after discovery.
- Complaint lacks any factual allegations of source confusion or consumer contact; no surveys or inquiries to Eastland or its products.
- Court explains the discussion of discovery/conversion under Rule 56(d) is unnecessary to resolve here and focuses on the threshold failure to allege confusion; Dastar v. Fox and Rogers considerations are avoided; Eastland’s mark weaknesses and lack of plausible confusion foreclose liability.
- Court affirms dismissal; the title 50/50 does not infringe Eastland’s mark, and Eastland cannot plausibly allege that Lionsgate is the source of the film or that consumers view the title as originating from Eastland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a likelihood-of-confusion claim | Eastland argues the title misleads as to source | Defendants contend no plausible confusion from title 50/50 | Dismissal affirmed for lack of plausible confusion |
| Whether the court should convert to summary judgment under Rule 56(d) | Discovery would be needed to prove confusion | No immediate need for discovery undermines likelihood of confusion | Unnecessary to decide conversion; the complaint fails on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2012) (application of Rule 12(d) and evidence considerations discussed (contextual relevance))
- Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) (artistic titles may be exempt from trademark claims depending on source-detection)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (U.S. 2003) (trademark cannot extend to control the content of an artistic work; origin focus for trademark infringement)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards require plausible claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)