347 F. Supp. 3d 217
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Beyoncé (plaintiff) owns the federally registered, incontestable BEYONCÉ mark for clothing, in continuous use since 2003.
- Defendants (Andre Maurice and Leana Lopez, and corporate Feyonce Inc.) sold apparel using the mark FEYONCÉ (and applied to register FEYONCÉ / FEYONCE) beginning in 2016; USPTO refused registration citing likelihood of confusion.
- Plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist (2015) and sued (2016) for trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution (federal and New York), and related claims; Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and a permanent injunction against Maurice and Lopez.
- Defendants argued FEYONCÉ is a pun evoking “fiancé,” marketed to engaged purchasers, and thus may dispel consumer confusion (parody/pun theory); they are pro se.
- District Court found BEYONCÉ is protectable and famous but concluded genuine disputes of material fact exist—particularly whether the FEYONCÉ pun dispels confusion—so summary judgment and permanent injunction were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal trademark infringement (likelihood of confusion) | BEYONCÉ is incontestable and FEYONCÉ is highly similar, sold in same channels, so confusion is likely | FEYONCÉ is a pun sounding like “fiancé”; the joke differentiates the marks and may prevent confusion | Denied — triable issue of fact whether the pun dispels confusion; not confusion as a matter of law |
| Federal unfair competition (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)) | Same likelihood-of-confusion theory supports §1125(a) relief | Same pun/market targeting undermines likelihood of confusion | Denied — resolution depends on same disputed factual issue as infringement |
| Federal trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. §1125(c)) | BEYONCÉ is famous; FEYONCÉ intentionally associates with it; dilution by blurring likely | Pun/repurposing may not impair distinctiveness; parody can strengthen recognition | Denied — factual disputes (similarity, intent, effect on distinctiveness) preclude summary judgment |
| Permanent injunction | Infringement/dilution established; monetary relief inadequate; irreparable harm exists | No final adjudication on merits; factual disputes remain | Denied — injunction requires success on the merits; triable issues remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Virgin Enters. Ltd. v. Nawab, 335 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.) (likelihood-of-confusion framework for §1114)
- Patsy’s Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., 317 F.3d 209 (2d Cir.) (Polaroid/triable-issue guidance on summary judgment)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 454 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.) (importance of mark similarity and distinctiveness in likelihood-of-confusion/dilution analyses)
- Nike, Inc. v. Just Did It Enters., 6 F.3d 1225 (7th Cir.) (pun/parody can create an issue for juries despite close visual similarity)
- Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Nature Labs, LLC, 221 F. Supp. 2d 410 (S.D.N.Y.) (parodic or joke marks may dispel confusion and defeat summary judgment)