Southern Marsh Collection, LLC v. Dixie Decoys, LLC, 2026 WL
2431220, No. 24-00905-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Aug. 19, 2026)

This opinion deals only with defendant’s attempt to get
claims against its allegedly false use of the ® symbol dismissed; it is otherwise
a trademark and copyright infringement case. Southern Marsh sells a variety of
outdoor apparel and accessories using a duck-style logo; it has several
registrations for its trademarks, including the logo and the slogan “PRESERVE
THE TRADITION.” Dixie Decoys allegedly uses a registered mark for its outdoor
apparel that is confusingly similar to Southern Marsh’s, as well as “Preserve
the Sporting Tradition” and “Preserve Your Sporting Tradition,” which allegedly
infringes.

Southern Marsh duck

Decoy duck

These are really weak, anticompetitive claims, but the usual deference given to trademark claims here extends even to the false advertising claim based on misuse of the ® symbol, which is that Dixie Decoys does have a registration for the logo, but only for “Waterfowl hunting decoys.” Nonetheless it uses the ® symbol more broadly.

The court found that general allegations of harm to Southern Marsh’s reputation and goodwill sufficed to plead both standing and sufficient harm to survive a motion to dismiss. That is, let’s say, unusual in false advertising cases. I tell my students to tell, and challenge, “harm stories,” but other than reciting the word “harm,” there is no harm story here. People might believe that Dixie Decoys has a trademark registration for its logo for apparel and … what? True underpants gnomes reasoning here.

The court also rejected Dixie Decoys’ argument that the use wasn’t literally false because there was a registration. “Federal trademark registration is not totally untethered from the goods or services identified in the registration, as Dixie Decoys contends…. [G]iven that federal trademark registration rights are goods-specific, this Court similarly finds that Southern Marsh has plausibly alleged that Dixie Decoys’ use of the ® symbol next to the challenged marks on goods outside of the registration could be a literally false statement of fact.” Thus, no evidence of deception was required, and anyway Southern Marsh alleged that consumers were deceived, which was enough at the pleading stage. [Materiality?]

from Blogger https://tushnet.blogspot.com/2026/08/use-of-r-on-goods-for-which-mark-is-not.html