844 F. Supp. 2d 510
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Naked Cowboy is a prominent street performer who wears a minimal costume and uses the mark Naked Cowboy on his apparel and merchandise.
- Plaintiff registered the word mark Naked Cowboy in 2002 and re-registered in 2010; he has sponsorships and licensed merchandise.
- CBS broadcasts The Bold and the Beautiful; Bell-Phillip produces the show and its marks/logos are displayed in the credits.
- Episode aired November 1, 2010, featuring a character Oliver in brief attire; Oliver’s outfit lacks Naked Cowboy’s distinctive elements.
- A Clarence B&B Update recap aired November 5, 2010, which did not reference Naked Cowboy; CBS and Bell-Phillip posted clips and ads online.
- Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action (various Lanham Act and state-law claims) arising from Defendants’ use of the naked cowboy imagery and related online clips.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trademark infringement using the Naked Cowboy mark | Naked Cowboy claims CBS used the mark in commerce via the YouTube clip. | CBS’s use is a descriptive fair use, not source-identifying. | Fair use; no use of the mark in commerce as a source identifier; claim dismissed. |
| Likelihood of confusion under Lanham Act § 43(a) | Defendants’ use may confuse consumers about sponsorship or origin. | Costsume differences and distinct markets negate confusion. | No likelihood of confusion under Polaroid factors; claim dismissed. |
| Dilution under Lanham Act § 43(c) | Naked Cowboy is famous and could be diluted by the Episode. | Oliver’s costume is not a use of the Naked Cowboy mark. | No dilution; claim dismissed. |
| New York Deceptive Acts and Practices claims ( §§ 349, 350) | Defendants’ actions constitute deceptive practices. | Claims are subsumed by federal claims and lack basis. | Dismissed as duplicative/unavailing under NY DAP statutes. |
| New York Civil Rights and common law fraud claims | Misappropriation of Naked Cowboy rights; privacy/publicity harms. | No viable privacy/publicity claim for fictitious celebrity costumes. | Civil rights and fraud claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005) (establishes how use in commerce and source indication work)
- Yankee Pub. Inc. v. News Am. Pub. Inc., 809 F. Supp. 267 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (non-trademark use can be descriptive rather than source-identifying)
- Merck & Co. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (non-use on goods/branding affects trademark claims)
- Car-Freshner Corp. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 70 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 1995) (fair use must describe goods rather than identify source)
- Arnold v. ABC, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 1747, 2007 WL 210330 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (descriptive fair use analysis in media context)
- Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) (eight-factor test for likelihood of confusion)
- Pirone v. MacMillan, Inc., 894 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1990) (distinctiveness/origin-indicating quality relevant to trademark)
- Chum Ltd. v. Lisowski, 198 F. Supp. 2d 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (consumer sophistication and source confusion considerations)
- Burck v. Mars, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (privacy/publicity claims not extending to celebrity-costumed figures)