Fizz Social Corp. v. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart
3:25-cv-03995
| N.D. Cal. | Jul 14, 2025Background
- Fizz Social Corp. (FSC) operates a campus-based social media app under the FIZZ mark, used since January 2022 and present on 400+ campuses.
- FSC alleges that Instacart’s launch of "Fizz by Instacart"—an app for group ordering drinks and snacks—and its integration with event platform Partiful, infringes FSC's trademark.
- Both FSC’s app and Fizz by Instacart are free, downloadable via app stores, and use the FIZZ mark, though they target somewhat different markets.
- FSC sought a preliminary injunction to bar Instacart and Partiful from using the FIZZ mark.
- The court considered likelihood of confusion, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest in its analysis of the injunction request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trademark ownership | FSC owns a protected, inherently distinctive FIZZ mark. | Does not dispute, but argues rights are limited to social media; grocery delivery is separate market. | FSC has a protectable interest; both operate in similar but not identical fields. |
| Likelihood of confusion | Identical FIZZ word mark on competing apps causes likely confusion among similar user bases. | Products/services/marks are distinguishable; apps serve different functions/markets. | No sufficient likelihood of confusion; marks appear differently in marketplace and serve distinct purposes. |
| Irreparable harm | Loss of brand control, risk to market position, confusion over fizz.com domain. | No evidence of reputational harm, targeting, or damage; little overlap in practice. | No irreparable harm shown; evidence of actual damage absent or speculative. |
| Balance of equities/public interest | Minimal harm to Instacart if rebranded; public benefits from avoiding confusion. | Significant harm/momentum lost if forced to rebrand; no real benefit without consumer confusion. | Balance of hardships does not tip in FSC’s favor; public interest not served without likely confusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)
- Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (alternative preliminary injunction test)
- Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137 (likelihood of confusion factors for internet)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (distinctiveness and protectability of marks)
- Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. West Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (relatedness and confusion in internet context)
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118 (likelihood of confusion analysis)
- Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (multi-factor confusion test)