Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey
95 F. Supp. 3d 350
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff Kelly-Brown uses the phrase “Own Your Power” in workshops since 2004 and runs Own Your Power Communications, Inc.
- Kelly-Brown obtained a Florida service-mark registration on May 27, 2008 for the stylized phrase with a disclaimer limiting protection to the mark as shown.
- Defendants published The Oprah Magazine in Oct. 2010 with “Own Your Power” on the cover and promoted the phrase at a related event and online.
- The October 2010 cover and promotional materials used the phrase alongside Defendants’ own marks and imagery.
- Discovery established materials showing Defendants’ magazine, event materials, and social media usage; the court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion and denied Plaintiffs’ cross-motion.
- The court dismissed the New Jersey statutory claims earlier and now holds no material facts support Plaintiff’s Lanham Act and common-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the phrase protectable as a trademark | Kelly-Brown claims protectable descriptive mark | Phrase is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning | Phrase not protectable; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Likelihood of consumer confusion | Use causes confusion with Plaintiffs’ mark | Uses are dissimilar and non-confounding due to context | No likelihood of confusion; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Fair use defense applicability | Defendants’ use infringes; no fair use | Use descriptive, non-trademark, good faith; fair use applies | Fair use applies; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Application to common-law claims | New Jersey common-law claims pleaded | Dismissed as derivative of federal claims or unsupported | New Jersey common-law claims dismissed; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Result of cross-motions for summary judgment | Partial summary judgment on Lanham Act claims warranted | Entire case resolved on summary judgment in Defendants’ favor | Defendants’ motion granted; Plaintiffs’ motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976) (classification of terms by distinctiveness)
- Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.1961) (Polaroid factors for likelihood of confusion)
- Time, Inc. v. Petersen Publ’g Co. L.L.C., 173 F.3d 113 (2d Cir.1999) (secondary meaning analysis for descriptive marks)
- Rockland Exposition, Inc. v. Alliance of Auto. Serv. Providers of N.J., 894 F.Supp.2d 288 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (multi-factor analysis for secondary meaning and strength)
- Virgin Enters. Ltd. v. Nawab, 335 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.2003) (strength of descriptive marks)
- JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud, 568 F.3d 390 (2d Cir.2009) (collective use/fair use considerations)
- Star Indus., Inc. v. Bacardi & Co. Ltd., 412 F.3d 373 (2d Cir.2005) (evidence required for consumer confusion)
- Cosmetically Sealed Indus., Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond’s USA Co., 125 F.3d 28 (2d Cir.1997) (advertising campaigns and single use implications for fair use)
- EMI Catalogue P’ship v. Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos Inc., 228 F.3d 56 (2d Cir.2000) (evidence of intent and market behavior in fair use)
- Lang v. Retirement Living Pub. Co., Inc., 949 F.2d 576 (2d Cir.1991) (characteristics of descriptive marks and fair use)
- Car-Freshner Corp. v. S.C Johnson & Son, Inc., 70 F.3d 267 (2d Cir.1995) (fair use defense factors and descriptive uses)