THOIP v. Walt Disney Co.
788 F. Supp. 2d 168
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- THOIP claims unregistered Mr. Men/Little Miss marks were infringed by Disney Miss Disney and Little Miss Disney T-shirts under the Lanham Act and common law.
- The court previously granted Disney summary judgment on forward confusion and reopened discovery for reverse confusion, allowing expert surveys.
- THOIP offered Ostberg’s survey testing reverse confusion; Disney offered Helfgott’s monadic reverse-confusion survey as rebuttal.
- The court excludes Ostberg’s survey as unreliable for reverse confusion due to marketplace-mimicking flaws, control issues, coding, and demand effects.
- Disney seeks summary judgment on reverse confusion; THOIP opposes arguing surveys show reverse-confusion signals and require weighing under Polaroid factors.
- The court concludes no probative evidence of reverse confusion remains (Ostberg excluded, Helfgott not reliably measuring past/future marketplace conditions), and dismisses THOIP’s claim; motions granted and case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Ostberg survey for reverse confusion | Ostberg survey valid indicators of reverse confusion | Survey flawed; fails marketplace replication, control, coding, and demand effects | Ostberg survey excluded; not a reliable indicator |
| Admissibility of Helfgott survey for reverse confusion | Helfgott survey supports reverse confusion signals | Helfgott lacks replication of past/future marketplace conditions | Helfgott survey not probative for reverse confusion |
| Likelihood of reverse confusion under Polaroid factors | Disney’s strength and mark similarity could swamp THOIP | No strong evidence Disney overwhelmed THOIP; no actual confusion proven | No reasonable juror could find reverse confusion on the record |
| Existence of actual confusion evidence | Surveys show potential confusion | No probative, admissible evidence of actual reverse confusion | Actual confusion factor weighs in Disney's favor; no probative evidence for THOIP |
Key Cases Cited
- Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1988) (reverse confusion considerations; need for factual predicates)
- Patsy’s Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., 317 F.3d 209 (2d Cir. 2003) (weighing actual confusion in reverse confusion contexts)
- Star Indus., Inc. v. Bacardi & Co. Ltd., 412 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 2005) (reverse confusion factors and likelihood of confusion framework)
- Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 390 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (brand strength and market dominance effects on confusion)
- Arrow Fastener Co., Inc. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 1995) (impact of additional brand features on confusion)
- Lang v. Retirement Living Pub. Co., Inc., 949 F.2d 576 (2d Cir. 1991) (origin-indicating strength of a mark)
- Plus Prods. v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc., 722 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1983) (reverse confusion framework and relevant factors)
- Centaur Commc’ns, Ltd. v. A/S/M Commc’ns, Inc., 830 F.2d 1217 (2d Cir. 1987) (survey-based evidence and confusion considerations)
- Visible Sys. Corp. v. Unisys Corp., 551 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2008) (reverse confusion considerations and market saturation emphasis)