## Facts

- BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC owned a federally registered BEYONCÉ trademark for clothing, used continuously in commerce since at least 2003.
- Products bearing the BEYONCÉ mark were sold online, including shirts and sweatshirts.
- Defendants marketed apparel and other goods using the name FEYONCÉ, aimed at engaged consumers (“fiancés”).
- FEYONCÉ was presented in a style similar to BEYONCÉ and was designed as wordplay combining “fiancé” with the famous name.
- Defendants sought to register FEYONCÉ with the USPTO; the applications were refused as confusingly similar to BEYONCÉ.
- Plaintiffs sued for trademark infringement, dilution, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment, and sought damages, transfer of a domain name, and injunctive relief.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and a permanent injunction against two defendants proceeding pro se; defendants opposed, arguing the term was a joke/pun not likely to confuse.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment that defendants’ use of FEYONCÉ on merchandise was likely to cause confusion with the BEYONCÉ mark under the Lanham Act.
2. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment and a permanent injunction on dilution, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment theories given the asserted fame of the BEYONCÉ mark.
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact—especially about consumer perception of the pun—required trial.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
- The court denied entry of a permanent injunction at that stage.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact on likelihood of confusion and related claims, requiring resolution by a factfinder.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is inappropriate where a reasonable jury could reach different conclusions on consumer perception and likelihood of confusion.
- Intent to evoke or capitalize on a famous mark is relevant to bad faith but does not, by itself, establish likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
- Wordplay, parody, or pun-based branding can affect the confusion analysis and may create triable issues about whether consumers understand the reference as humor rather than a source indicator.
- Claims for dilution, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment may depend on overlapping factual questions about how consumers perceive the challenged use and whether it misappropriates or harms the mark’s distinctiveness.

## Conclusion

The court refused to resolve the trademark and related claims on summary judgment because the record permitted competing inferences about whether consumers would view FEYONCÉ as an affiliated source identifier or as engagement-themed wordplay, leaving infringement and dilution issues for trial.


Knowles-Carter v. Feyoncé, Inc., 347 F. Supp. 3d 217 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)