Source: cases/15usc1125/f4th-142-338-reed-v-marshall.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f4th/volume_142/338/index.html
Marshall and Harris, as persons with complete ownership interests in the mark, have an unencumbered right to use the mark as they please.
Harris and Marshall have not engaged in “unlawful conduct”: their ownership rights afford the authority to (1) perform under the mark and (2) license Holloway as a guest to perform with them.
Those facts doom Reed’s theory of liability as to her false designation of origin claim.
Said otherwise, while allegations of injury are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, evidence of injury is required to survive a motion for summary judgment.
Reed has accordingly not evidenced the injury necessary to sustain her false advertising claim.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f4th/142/338 name Reed v. Marshall cite 142 F.4th 338 (2025) court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit date 2025-07-02 url catalog/cases/f4th/volume_142/338/index.html source ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl sha1=dd2265441d4669dd4b39efdb2700837d73a67d53 chars=35685 opinion op : panel by Graves @620..35685 controlling party p1 : Joi Marshall and Tonya Harris (co-owners of the JADE mark) and Myracle Holloway (their licensee) count c1 : false designation of origin / false association, § 1125(a)(1)(A) count c2 : false advertising, § 1125(a)(1)(B) law 15usc1125 (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B) role applied posture civil action by one member of a vocal group against her two fellow co-owners of the group's registered service mark and their licensee, for infringement (§ 1114), dilution (§ 1125(c)) and § 1125(a) false designation of origin and false advertising; summary judgment for defendants affirmed. The § 1114 and § 1125(c) rulings (no claim between co-owners) are outside this law and are not recorded as blocks result claimant-lost element actionable-interest : not-satisfied [law] party p1 count c1 route co-owner-dispute pattern band member suing fellow co-registrants who perform under the jointly owned mark with a substitute singer, no agreement dividing rights fact @3350..3513 [cuts-against] | The mark’s registrants were listed as Reed, Marshall, and Harris, all in their individual capacities, and its first use in commerce was identified as July 1, 1992. fact @3514..3688 [cuts-against] | Discussions of the reunion tour were aborted, and in June 2021, Marshall and Harris entered into a six-month work-for-hire contract with a different singer, Myracle Holloway. fact @13854..14046 [cuts-against absent] | Here, the parties failed to enter into a contractual agreement that defined their respective obligations; and some of the mark’s co-owners have had a falling out with another set of co-owners. fact @3689..3906 [supports] | Despite cease-and-desist letters issued by Reed’s attorney, Marshall, Harris, and Holloway performed as Jade at multiple “90’s Kickback Concert[s]” held in Milwaukee, Miami, and Houston, in November and December 2021. rule @20320..20457 | Marshall and Harris, as persons with complete ownership interests in the mark, have an unencumbered right to use the mark as they please. held @34973..35164 | Harris and Marshall have not engaged in “unlawful conduct”: their ownership rights afford the authority to (1) perform under the mark and (2) license Holloway as a guest to perform with them. held @35165..35253 | Those facts doom Reed’s theory of liability as to her false designation of origin claim. gloss A co-owner's use and licensing of the jointly owned mark is authorised, so a fellow co-owner has no § 1125(a)(1)(A) claim premised on "unauthorized use". The court expressly does not decide whether a false-designation claim requires proof of commercial injury (n.5). ? other: the court frames this ground as the district court's second rationale (injuries not proximately caused by a violation of the Lanham Act, citing Lexmark at 133) rather than as an entitlement-to-sue ruling; filed under actionable-interest because that is the entitlement element of the false-association claim in the law file and the co-owner-dispute route is defined there element commercial-injury : not-satisfied [no-evidence] party p1 count c2 route _whole pattern co-owner claiming lost opportunities and reputation from fellow co-owners' performances under the shared mark, no record evidence of lost sales or reputation fact @31831..32027 [supports] | Reed’s best allegation is that in marketing materials for the 2024 “R&B Block Party” concert, the event’s promoters created social media posts that included a Jade song that featured Reed’s voice. fact @31700..31804 [cuts-against absent] | And evidence of any “injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales” is lacking from the record. fact @32655..32822 [cuts-against] | Notwithstanding the lack of evidence to support these theories, the defendants’ co-ownership of the JADE mark does not exclude Reed from using the mark as she pleases. rule @31534..31699 | Said otherwise, while allegations of injury are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, evidence of injury is required to survive a motion for summary judgment. held @33166..33261 | Reed has accordingly not evidenced the injury necessary to sustain her false advertising claim. gloss Lexmark zone-of-interests injury must be shown by evidence at summary judgment. The court also relies on the co-ownership point (use was authorised) and notes the promoters who made the advertisements are not parties.