United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025-07-02
15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
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; claim: (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B)
Uncertainty
Element actionable-interest: 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
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reed v. Marshall — 142 F.4th 338 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reed v. Marshall — 142 F.4th 338 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reed v. Marshall — 142 F.4th 338 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reed v. Marshall — 142 F.4th 338 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 — not · law (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Entitlement to sue and protected commercial interest | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B); party: Joi Marshall and Tonya Harris (co-owners of the JADE mark) and Myracle Holloway (their licensee); count: false designation of origin / false association, § 1125(a)(1)(A); subject: party=Joi Marshall and Tonya Harris (co-owners of the JADE mark) and Myracle Holloway (their licensee); count=false designation of origin / false association, § 1125(a)(1)(A) 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). | band member suing fellow co-registrants who perform under the jointly owned mark with a substitute singer, no agreement dividing rights | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [3350:3513] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [3514:3688] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [13854:14046] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [3689:3906] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.Marshall and Harris, as persons with complete ownership interests in the mark, have an unencumbered right to use the mark as they please.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [20320:20457] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [34973:35164] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.Those facts doom Reed’s theory of liability as to her false designation of origin claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [35165:35253] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f. |
| Reed v. Marshall — 142 F.4th 338 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 — not · no-evidence (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial zone-of-interests limit to commercial injury | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B); party: Joi Marshall and Tonya Harris (co-owners of the JADE mark) and Myracle Holloway (their licensee); count: false advertising, § 1125(a)(1)(B); subject: party=Joi Marshall and Tonya Harris (co-owners of the JADE mark) and Myracle Holloway (their licensee); count=false advertising, § 1125(a)(1)(B) 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. | co-owner claiming lost opportunities and reputation from fellow co-owners' performances under the shared mark, no record evidence of lost sales or reputation | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [31831:32027] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.And evidence of any “injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales” is lacking from the record.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [31700:31804] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [32655:32822] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [31534:31699] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.Reed has accordingly not evidenced the injury necessary to sustain her false advertising claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [33166:33261] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f. |