United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019-04-23
15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
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; claim: (a)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 17
| Case | Statutory person including state entities and officials | Judicial domestic infringing-use limit | Use in commerce connected with goods or services | Enforceable source-identifying mark or trade dress | Likely consumer confusion about source or sponsorship | Entitlement to sue and protected commercial interest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hard Candy, LLC v. Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc. — 921 F.3d 1343 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 17
| Case | Good-faith descriptive use other than as a mark | State sovereign immunity unless a valid route permits suit | Misleading affiliation approval or sponsorship | Claimant proves nonfunctionality | Commercial advertising or promotion | False or misleading factual representation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hard Candy, LLC v. Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc. — 921 F.3d 1343 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | ✓ satisfied · provedNot counted: applied/alternative | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–17 of 17
| Case | Judicial actual-deception or tendency-to-deceive requirement | Judicial materiality requirement for purchasing decisions | Judicial zone-of-interests limit to commercial injury | Judicial proximate-causation requirement | Remedy-specific proof |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hard Candy, LLC v. Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc. — 921 F.3d 1343 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hard Candy, LLC v. Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc. — 921 F.3d 1343 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Good-faith descriptive use other than as a mark | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: proved; claim: (a); party: Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc.; count: Hard Candy cosmetic mark infringement / unfair competition (§ 1114(1), § 1125(a), common law); subject: party=Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc.; count=Hard Candy cosmetic mark infringement / unfair competition (§ 1114(1), § 1125(a), common law) 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. | shade name describing the sheen of a makeup shade, alongside other non-literal shade names | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [48041:48202] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [48203:48424] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [3595:3789] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [46077:46264] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5.We are hard-pressed to find clear error of any kind.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [49057:49109] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5. |
| Hard Candy, LLC v. Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc. — 921 F.3d 1343 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 — not · proved (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Likely consumer confusion about source or sponsorship | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a); party: Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc.; count: Hard Candy cosmetic mark infringement / unfair competition (§ 1114(1), § 1125(a), common law); subject: party=Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc.; count=Hard Candy cosmetic mark infringement / unfair competition (§ 1114(1), § 1125(a), common law) 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. | 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 | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [3280:3430] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [36903:37161] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [39498:39772] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5.Uncontroverted testimony at trial established that Anastasia sold 248,075 Gleam Glow Kits, totaling over $5 million in revenue.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [44162:44289] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5.And still, Hard Candy did not produce any evidence that a customer was ever actually confused about the source of the Gleam Glow Kit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [44395:44528] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [38986:39164] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1343-01; Unicode character offsets [45016:45252] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee62519888b4322bf8eef654b7ee4994544ae2c9788de09364cc92bcadfad2c5. |