## Facts

- Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball, Inc. operated a touring “show basketball” troupe using the mark “Harlem Wizards,” and sold tickets and related merchandise.
- An NBA member club publicly announced it would change its team name to the “Washington Wizards” starting with the 1997–1998 season, with planned use in promotions and merchandising.
- The senior user did not claim that consumers would believe the NBA team itself was the Harlem Wizards (no forward confusion theory).
- The senior user instead asserted reverse confusion: the NBA’s commercial dominance and advertising would overwhelm the smaller senior user’s mark and lead consumers to believe the Harlem Wizards’ goods and services were sponsored by or affiliated with the NBA team.
- The senior user sought injunctive relief and damages under Lanham Act § 43(a), the New Jersey Trademark Act, and state common law.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ planned use of “Washington Wizards” created a likelihood of consumer confusion under a reverse confusion theory with the senior mark “Harlem Wizards” for purposes of Lanham Act § 43(a).
2. Whether the same likelihood-of-confusion analysis defeated parallel state statutory and common-law trademark claims at the summary judgment stage.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that no reasonable factfinder could find a likelihood of reverse confusion between “Harlem Wizards” and “Washington Wizards.”
- Because the federal claim failed, the court dismissed the related state statutory and common-law claims seeking injunctions and damages.

## Legal Principles

- Reverse confusion is actionable under Lanham Act § 43(a) when a commercially dominant junior user saturates the market with a similar mark such that consumers are likely to believe the senior user’s goods or services originate with, are sponsored by, or are controlled by the junior user.
- Likelihood of confusion in reverse confusion cases is assessed through a multifactor analysis focusing on the marks’ overall commercial impressions, the parties’ market strength, product/service relatedness, trade channels, evidence of actual confusion, and intent.
- Shared use of a common term does not establish infringement where the marks’ overall sight, sound, and meaning materially differ (including through geographic modifiers) and the record lacks evidence supporting likely mistaken sponsorship or affiliation.
- A junior user’s market power alone does not create liability absent evidence supporting likely confusion about source, sponsorship, or control.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the geographic modifiers and overall commercial impressions of “Harlem Wizards” and “Washington Wizards,” combined with limited relatedness in the parties’ offerings and a lack of evidence of likely mistaken affiliation, precluded a finding of reverse confusion; summary judgment was entered for defendants on all claims.


Harlem Wizards Ent. Basketball, Inc. v. NBA Props., Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1084 (D.N.J. 1997)