MGFB Properties, Inc. v. 495 Productions Holdings LLC
54 F.4th 670
11th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (MGFB, Flora‑Bama Mgmt., Old SALTS) own and operate the long‑standing "Flora‑Bama" bar and registered the FLORA‑BAMA trademark (federal registration 2013) for bar/restaurant and entertainment services.
- Defendants (495 Productions and Viacom/MNV) produced the reality TV series titled MTV Floribama Shore, filmed in Panama City Beach and developed to portray a Gulf Coast "Floribama" subculture.
- Defendants’ development materials and marketing used the term "Floribama" descriptively for the region; the show’s title added MTV and Shore to signal network and franchise connection.
- Plaintiffs sent a pre‑release cease‑and‑desist (Oct 2017) and later sued (Aug 2019) under the Lanham Act and Florida law alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution, and related claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants; on appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, applying the Rogers v. Grimaldi two‑part First Amendment–trademark test and rejecting Plaintiffs’ evidence of confusing sponsorship.
- The panel declined to adopt or apply the Rogers footnote "title‑versus‑title" exception because Plaintiffs used Flora‑Bama as a source identifier for a business (not as the title of artistic works), and the Rogers test controlled; a concurrence argued the Court should reject the footnote exception if squarely presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the title of an artistic work (MTV Floribama Shore) violates the Lanham Act given First Amendment protections (Rogers test) | "Flor(a)‑Bama" is Plaintiffs’ mark; the show infringes and creates consumer confusion | Title is artistically relevant to the show and not explicitly misleading; Rogers protects such uses | Rogers test applies; title is artistically relevant and not explicitly misleading; no Lanham Act violation (summary judgment affirmed) |
| Whether Defendants’ use "explicitly misleads" consumers (survey, social posts, anecdotal confusion) | Survey and social media show real public confusion about affiliation | Evidence shows no overt marketing that sponsors/endorses the Lounge; survey reflects possible but not defendant‑created explicit misrepresentation | Survey and social media insufficient; no evidence Defendants overtly marketed the show as endorsed/sponsored by Plaintiffs; fails Rogers’ second prong |
| Whether the Rogers footnote "title‑versus‑title" (confusingly similar titles) exception applies | Plaintiffs point to third‑party artistic works using "Flora‑Bama" and argue title‑vs‑title exception should apply | This is not a title‑vs‑title dispute: Plaintiffs use their mark to identify a commercial establishment, not to identify artistic works as source identifiers | Court did not apply the footnote exception (not a title‑versus‑title case) and affirmed on Rogers grounds; concurrence urged rejecting the exception in future cases |
| Whether intentional copying supports an inference of intent to confuse (reliance on J‑B Weld) | Defendants deliberately copied Plaintiffs’ mark; copying implies intent to misappropriate goodwill | Copying alone does not show the type of overt, explicitly misleading marketing that Rogers requires; J‑B Weld (non‑First Amendment trade dress case) is inapplicable | Intentional copying is insufficient under Rogers; J‑B Weld inapposite because it did not raise First Amendment concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) (establishes two‑part test protecting artistic titles unless no artistic relevance or title explicitly misleads)
- Univ. of Ala. Bd. of Trs. v. New Life Art, Inc., 683 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2012) (adopts Rogers; applies test to artistic depictions and endorsements)
- Twentieth Century Fox Television v. Empire Distrib. Inc., 875 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2017) (rejects Rogers footnote exception; discusses title‑versus‑title issues)
- J‑B Weld Co. v. Gorilla Glue Co., 978 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 2020) (trade dress/copying context; court explains limits of inferring deceptive intent—distinguished here)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (describes Lanham Act’s role in protecting goodwill and preventing consumer confusion)
- Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2013) (survey evidence cannot substitute for evidence of defendant’s overt misleading conduct)