United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019-04-01
15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: Rule 54(b) appeal from summary judgment for Kardashian defendants; statutory right of action determined by license terms, not Article III jurisdiction.; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
Single dispositive element: the court did not decide confusion, infringement, or claim preclusion. Contract rights, statutory zone of interests, and Article III are distinct despite the lower court standing terminology.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kroma Makeup Eu v. Boldface Licensing & Branding — 920 F.3d 704 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kroma Makeup Eu v. Boldface Licensing & Branding — 920 F.3d 704 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kroma Makeup Eu v. Boldface Licensing & Branding — 920 F.3d 704 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kroma Makeup Eu v. Boldface Licensing & Branding — 920 F.3d 704 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 — not · law (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Entitlement to sue and protected commercial interest | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: Kroma EU against Kardashian defendants; subject: party=Kroma EU against Kardashian defendants Pure contract construction resolves statutory entitlement on summary judgment. Economic injury and exclusive distribution do not override this reservation; no universal registered-owner restriction or jurisdictional standing failure is inferred. | licensing/enforcement-reserved-to-licensor | In October 2012, Tillett granted an exclusive license to Kroma EU to import, sell, and distribute KROMA products in Europe, and to use the KROMA mark in furtherance of its business.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0704-01; Unicode character offsets [623:804] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6e77869881244fd295fa194aa518afd7917c84bbbeb6287a54038cc81c2dab35.Tillett retains the KROMA trademark as its "exclusive and inalienable property" and "reserves the right to assign/transfer it to any individual person or legal entity."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0704-01; Unicode character offsets [12083:12251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6e77869881244fd295fa194aa518afd7917c84bbbeb6287a54038cc81c2dab35.But importantly, Section 4.3.2 only vested Kroma EU with the obligation to "inform [Tillett] of any illegal use of the trademark," prompting Tillett to file suit against the infringer-at which point Tillett would be required to compensate Kroma for its losses resulting from the infringement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0704-01; Unicode character offsets [13782:14074] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6e77869881244fd295fa194aa518afd7917c84bbbeb6287a54038cc81c2dab35.We adopt the position taken by the district courts in this circuit-that a licensee's right to sue to protect the mark "largely depends on the rights granted to the licensee in the licensing agreement."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0704-01; Unicode character offsets [7190:7391] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6e77869881244fd295fa194aa518afd7917c84bbbeb6287a54038cc81c2dab35.Therefore, the licensing agreement does not give Kroma EU sufficient "rights in the name" to sue under the Lanham Act.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0704-01; Unicode character offsets [16861:16979] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6e77869881244fd295fa194aa518afd7917c84bbbeb6287a54038cc81c2dab35. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Here, applying the licensing agreement to this inquiry is a straightforward exercise. The plain language of the agreement demonstrates the parties' intent for Tillett to retain all ownership and enforcement rights. Kroma EU-while it may have other rights under the agreement-does not possess the ability to assert its rights in the mark in this proceeding.
Kroma Makeup Eu v. Boldface Licensing & Branding — 920 F.3d 704 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed)
Here, applying the licensing agreement to this inquiry is a straightforward exercise. The plain language of the agreement demonstrates the parties' intent for Tillett to retain all ownership and enforcement rights. Kroma EU-while it may have other rights under the agreement-does not possess the ability to assert its rights in the mark in this proceeding.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0704-01; Unicode character offsets [11514:11870] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6e77869881244fd295fa194aa518afd7917c84bbbeb6287a54038cc81c2dab35.Kroma EU illustrates enforcement rights reserved to the licensor; mere economic interest is insufficient in that contractual setting. Article III injury and statutory cause-of-action entitlement are distinct. Lexmark’s specific commercial-injury test is set out separately for advertising.