DEFENSE · 15usc1125:descriptive-fair-use
This defense does not require defendant to prove absence of all confusion. Nominative use and expressive-use analysis are separate and jurisdiction-sensitive. Jack Daniel’s (2023) rejects the special Rogers threshold when the challenged designation is used as a mark for defendant’s own goods; parody may still affect confusion.
Exact element source
any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereofSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1125; Unicode character offsets [195:262] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0a5680239d11ae3247a99abab2344db45177346d2d2e3050e95c82fb39f3aca7.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; 2 observed cases | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 1 | Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted 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)) · applied/alternative · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| 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. |
| Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Good-faith descriptive use other than as a mark | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: Gatorade and PepsiCo; theory: Nontrademark descriptive use in good faith; subject: party=Gatorade and PepsiCo; theory=Nontrademark descriptive use in good faith All three defense prongs were sustained on summary judgment. [law] records the defense being legally established on a record viewed favorably to SportFuel; it does not signify trial factfinding or a concession. The DSL has no affirmative-defense summary-judgment-success basis. | descriptive-use/sports-nutrition-slogan | In short, to raise the fair use defense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not use "Sports Fuel" as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of its goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [7033:7251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.The products' individual packaging and displays feature Gatorade's house mark and G Bolt logo more prominently.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [10646:10757] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.First, producers of nutritional products for athletes regularly invoke the "Sports Fuel" terminology to describe the products they sell. Gatorade provided numerous examples of this widespread industry use to the district court, including, for example, Twin Laboratories' "SPORT FUEL" and Trident Sports' "SPORTS FUEL."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [16052:16370] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.Gatorade's stated purpose in adopting the challenged slogan was to help the company better describe its business and the products it sells. Nothing in the record actually contradicts this purpose.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [26582:26778] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.SportFuel emphasizes that Gatorade employed a "TM" symbol with the slogan and obtained a trademark for the slogan.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [11267:11381] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.Accordingly, we do not believe the district court erred in determining that Gatorade never employed the term "Sports Fuel" as a trademark in its "Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company" slogan.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [12299:12486] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.We conclude that Gatorade's slogan uses "Sports Fuel" in a descriptive sense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [18007:18084] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.Further, it is clear from the record that Gatorade provided sufficient evidence that it used the term "Sports Fuel" fairly and in good faith.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [26440:26581] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
In short, to raise the fair use defense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not use "Sports Fuel" as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of its goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.
Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))
In short, to raise the fair use defense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not use "Sports Fuel" as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of its goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [7033:7251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.This defense does not require defendant to prove absence of all confusion. Nominative use and expressive-use analysis are separate and jurisdiction-sensitive. Jack Daniel’s (2023) rejects the special Rogers threshold when the challenged designation is used as a mark for defendant’s own goods; parody may still affect confusion.