Source: cases/15usc1125/f3d-921-1343-hard-candy-v-anastasia.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_921/1343_01/index.html
But the trial court must "compare[ ] the marks and consider[ ] the overall impressions that the marks create, including the sound, appearance, and manner in which they are used."
In sum, the record does not suggest that the district court committed clear error as to any of its findings, and it does not show clear error as to the court's ultimate conclusion that Hard Candy had not shown a likelihood of confusion.
A defendant is entitled to the fair use defense if it establishes that it used the allegedly infringing term "(1) other than as a mark, (2) in a descriptive sense, and (3) in good faith."
We are hard-pressed to find clear error of any kind.
# author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high)
# triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10)
casedsl 1.2
case /f3d/921/1343-01
name Hard Candy, LLC v. Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc.
cite 921 F.3d 1343 (2019)
court United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
date 2019-04-23
url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_921/1343_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl sha1=239e4f2552a8d8136e8688815751cfa7f2d0c2cf chars=51291
opinion op : panel by Marcus @23..51291 controlling
party p1 : Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc.
count c1 : Hard Candy cosmetic mark infringement / unfair competition (§ 1114(1), § 1125(a), common law)
law 15usc1125 (a)
role applied
posture civil action for trademark infringement and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a); jury demand struck because only equitable remedies (profits, injunction) remained; bench-trial judgment for defendant (no likelihood of confusion; alternatively fair use) affirmed on clear-error review
result claimant-lost
element likely-confusion : not-satisfied [proved]
decider trial-judge
review affirmed
party p1
count c1
route _whole
pattern plaintiff's word mark used as one of four shade names inside a competitor's clearly branded makeup palette; no actual confusion after large sales
fact @3280..3430 [supports] | The Gleam Glow Kit included the words "hard candy" in capital letters on the back and inside of the package to designate a peach-pink shade of makeup.
fact @36903..37161 [supports] | There was no dispute that both companies sell cosmetics products online and in retail stores, their customers are primarily women between the ages of 18 and 35, and both advertise their products through trade shows, social media, and traditional print media.
fact @39498..39772 [cuts-against] | The district court looked to the overall impression created by the Gleam Glow Kit-the words "HARD CANDY" appeared only on the back and inside of the kit, "nam[ing] one shade of a product that is otherwise clearly and prominently featured as an Anastasia Beverly Hills mark."
fact @44162..44289 [cuts-against] | Uncontroverted testimony at trial established that Anastasia sold 248,075 Gleam Glow Kits, totaling over $5 million in revenue.
fact @44395..44528 [cuts-against absent] | And still, Hard Candy did not produce any evidence that a customer was ever actually confused about the source of the Gleam Glow Kit.
rule @38986..39164 | But the trial court must "compare[ ] the marks and consider[ ] the overall impressions that the marks create, including the sound, appearance, and manner in which they are used."
held @45016..45252 | In sum, the record does not suggest that the district court committed clear error as to any of its findings, and it does not show clear error as to the court's ultimate conclusion that Hard Candy had not shown a likelihood of confusion.
gloss Eleventh Circuit affirms bench-trial finding (seven-factor test) that use of the words "hard candy" as one of four shade names in a highlighter palette was not likely to cause confusion; mark strength and similarity of products, channels and advertising favoured the plaintiff, but manner of use and the absence of actual confusion despite ample opportunity carried the finding.
defense descriptive-fair-use : satisfied [proved]
scope alternative
decider trial-judge
review affirmed
party p1
count c1
route _whole
pattern shade name describing the sheen of a makeup shade, alongside other non-literal shade names
fact @48041..48202 [supports] | It accepted the argument that "hard candy" was used in a descriptive sense because "it was used to describe the sheen" of the makeup shade that the term labeled.
fact @48203..48424 [supports] | Anastasia introduced evidence that cosmetics companies regularly describe shades with words that are not literal color descriptions, like the other three shades in the kit named "Starburst," "Mimosa," and "Crushed Pearl."
fact @3595..3789 [supports] | The developer testified that she was aware of Hard Candy, LLC, as a seller of nail polish in the 1990s, but she was not aware of the company's continued existence when she came up with the name.
rule @46077..46264 | A defendant is entitled to the fair use defense if it establishes that it used the allegedly infringing term "(1) other than as a mark, (2) in a descriptive sense, and (3) in good faith."
held @49057..49109 | We are hard-pressed to find clear error of any kind.
gloss Alternative ground below ("even if Hard Candy could establish infringement"), affirmed. On appeal only the "descriptive sense" prong was challenged; the court holds no evidence of actual consumer perception is required.