The Fashion Exchange LLC v. Hybrid Promotions, LLC
- Sidney Stein
- 1:14-cv-01254
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
The Fashion Exchange v. Hybrid Promotions: Judge Stein's court found no likely trademark confusion, granted defendants summary judgment, denied plaintiff's cross-motion, and dismissed both claims.
The Fashion Exchange LLC's trademark-infringement and Lanham Act unfair-competition claims against Hybrid Promotions, LLC, and the other defendants were dismissed; defendants prevailed on their summary-judgment motion.
What happened
In The Fashion Exchange LLC v. Hybrid Promotions, LLC, the court found that defendants' use of the marks HYBRID, HYBRID TEES, and HYBRID APPAREL was not likely to confuse consumers with The Fashion Exchange's marks HYBRID and HYBRID & COMPANY.
The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied The Fashion Exchange's cross-motion. Because both the trademark-infringement and Lanham Act unfair-competition claims required likely confusion, the court dismissed both claims and closed the case.
Judge Sidney Stein's court entered the judgment on September 29, 2023.
The detailed version
- The Fashion Exchange LLC v. Hybrid Promotions, LLC · No. 1:14-cv-01254
- Sidney Stein
- Sept. 29, 2023
Ruling
The court decided the trademark dispute on summary judgment, a procedure that allows judgment without a trial when the relevant facts do not require one. It found as a matter of law that defendants' use in commerce of the marks HYBRID, HYBRID TEES, and HYBRID APPAREL was not likely to cause confusion with The Fashion Exchange LLC's marks HYBRID and HYBRID & COMPANY.
Motions and Claims
The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied The Fashion Exchange's cross-motion. The judgment states that both the trademark-infringement claims and the unfair-competition claims under the Lanham Act required a finding of likely confusion. Because the court found no likely confusion, it dismissed both types of claims.
Disposition
The case was closed. The judgment is dated September 29, 2023, and was entered by the clerk of court. Judge Sidney Stein is identified in the supplied case information; the provided judgment itself refers to a separate Opinion & Order dated the same day.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.