Lee Kibler v. Robert Hall, II
843 F.3d 1068
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Lee Jason Kibler (performing as “DJ LOGIC” since 1999; registered the mark initially in 2000, lapsed, re-registered in 2013) sued rapper Robert Bryson Hall II (performing as “LOGIC”) and related entities (Three Oh One, Visionary Music Group, Def Jam/UMG, WME) for trademark infringement, Michigan state claims, and federal dilution.
- Kibler sent cease-and-desist communications in 2012; Three Oh One applied to register “LOGIC” in 2012; Hall achieved major commercial success (album released 2014; >170,000 copies sold).
- District court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims (2015); Kibler appealed.
- Eleventh-hour and central factual disputes: (1) whether consumers are likely to confuse “DJ LOGIC” and “LOGIC”; (2) whether Hall’s use diluted a famous mark.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo, applying the Frisch eight-factor likelihood-of-confusion test and the Lanham Act standard for dilution (fame to the general consuming public).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act (Frisch factors) | Kibler argued his mark is protectable and that overlap in names/marketing and some incidents of actual confusion show a triable issue | Defendants argued Kibler lacks commercial strength, marks are dissimilar as used, limited actual confusion, and crowded online channels negate confusion | No — balance of Frisch factors favors defendants (no reasonable jury could find likelihood of confusion) |
| Strength (commercial recognition) of plaintiff’s mark | Kibler pointed to press, TV appearances, touring, social media, and past registrations to show recognition | Defendants emphasized lack of surveys, low recent album sales, no major-label contract, and ambiguous publicity metrics | No — mark is conceptually moderate but commercially weak; evidence insufficient to show broad public recognition |
| Similarity of marks (including whether to dissect “DJ” from “LOGIC”) | Kibler argued “LOGIC” alone is what consumers see and that “DJ” is descriptive and should not defeat similarity | Defendants and court applied anti-dissection rule: compare the marks as a whole; “DJ” changes appearance/sound/meaning | No — similarity factor favors defendants because “DJ LOGIC” must be considered as a whole |
| Dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (fame) | Kibler claimed his long career and publicity make “DJ LOGIC” famous enough for dilution protection | Defendants argued Kibler cannot meet the high “household name” fame standard required by the statute | No — Kibler’s evidence falls well short of the Act’s fame threshold; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc., 694 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2012) (two-step trademark infringement framework and protectability analysis)
- Homeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Marketing Specialists, Inc., 931 F.2d 1100 (6th Cir. 1991) (Frisch-factor application to relatedness and marketing channels)
- Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012) (importance of commercial strength and comparison of key Frisch factors)
- Frisch’s Restaurant, Inc. v. Shoney’s, Inc., 759 F.2d 1261 (6th Cir. 1985) (enumeration of the eight Frisch likelihood-of-confusion factors)
- Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr., 109 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 1997) (anti-dissection rule and similarity analysis)
- Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 295 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2002) (evaluation of commercial strength, actual confusion, and online marketing considerations)
- Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining the high "household name" fame threshold for dilution under the Lanham Act)
- Audi AG v. D’Amato, 469 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2006) (example of marks found famed for dilution purposes)