## Facts

- The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation registered “THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME” as a federal service mark in 1988.
- The Foundation commissioned architect I. M. Pei to design the museum building in Cleveland, Ohio; the museum opened in September 1995.
- The museum asserted the building design was a distinctive symbol associated with the museum and rock-and-roll culture; the building was architecturally unique.
- Charles M. Gentile, a professional photographer, photographed the museum’s exterior from a public vantage point and sold posters featuring the building.
- Gentile’s posters used the title “Rock N Roll Hall of Fame” and displayed his name and copyright notice; some sales included a disclaimer disputably stating lack of museum sponsorship.
- The museum claimed trademark/trade dress rights in the building design itself and alleged Gentile’s posters were likely to cause confusion regarding sponsorship or authorization.
- The museum had obtained Ohio registration for the building design as a mark and had a federal application pending.

## Issues

1. Whether the museum showed a strong likelihood that the building design functioned as a protectable trademark/trade dress (through inherent distinctiveness as a mark or secondary meaning).
2. Whether the museum showed a strong likelihood of consumer confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Gentile’s poster.
3. Whether, under the preliminary-injunction factors, the district court properly enjoined Gentile from marketing the poster.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion in finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits.
- The museum did not make an adequate showing that the building design operated as a source identifier rather than merely a distinctive architectural work.
- The museum also failed to show a strong likelihood of confusion, particularly given the poster’s attribution to Gentile and the limited record of consumer confusion.
- Because the merits showing was insufficient, the preliminary-injunction analysis could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Trade dress protection requires that the claimed design function as a symbol identifying the source of goods or services; architectural uniqueness alone does not establish trademark distinctiveness.
- A claimed trade dress that is not inherently distinctive must be supported by evidence of secondary meaning—public perception that the design’s primary significance is source identification.
- Likelihood of confusion must be supported by record evidence and is not presumed merely because a design is recognizable.
- Preliminary injunctive relief in trademark cases requires a strong likelihood of success on protectability and confusion; failure on these elements supports vacatur on abuse-of-discretion review.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit vacated an injunction barring sale of a poster depicting the museum because the record did not show that the building’s design, as opposed to the building as architecture, functioned as a protectable source-identifying mark or that the poster was likely to confuse consumers about museum sponsorship.


Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Prods., 134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 1998)