District court dismisses computer software company’s trademark claims against Warner Bros. based on references in Batman film The Dark Knight Rises to fictional “clean slate” software program, finding there could be no consumer confusion as to source of fictional product or of defendant’s film and that Warner Bros.’ use of “clean slate” was protected by First Amendment.
The district court granted Warner Bros.’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s allegations failed to establish any consumer confusion as to the source of its product – an essential element of plaintiff’s claims. Noting that trademark infringement protects only against mistaken purchasing decisions, not against confusion in general, the court found that any consumer confusion must be determined in the context of the parties’ actual products – plaintiff’s Clean Slate program and defendant’s film. In order to state a claim, Fortres Grand had to plausibly allege either (1) that consumers believe the fictional “clean slate” software is connected to Fortres Grand, or (2) that consumers believe The Dark Knight Rises is connected to Fortres Grand. As to the first possibility, the court found it impossible because the Batman “clean slate” software is fictional and cannot be purchased. Likewise, the court found the second scenario implausible because Fortres Grand is not in the motion picture business and no reasonable moviegoer would think it had a connection to The Dark Knight Rises.
The district court also found that, even if consumer confusion could exist, defendant’s use of “clean slate” was protected by the First Amendment. As the Second Circuit explained in Rogers v. Grimaldi, the Lanham Act is inapplicable to artistic works as long as the work’s use of a trademark is both “artistically relevant” to the work and not “explicitly misleading” as to the source or content of the work. The court found that defendant had satisfied both of the Rogers factors. The phrase “clean slate” was artistically relevant to The Dark Knight Rises because it formed part of the film’s plotline, and defendant’s use was not “explicitly misleading” because, as discussed above, no moviegoer would reasonably believe that Fortres Grand sponsored the defendant’s film. The court noted, however, that Fortres Grand did not assert a claim for trademark dilution, likely because its mark was not sufficiently “famous.” The court therefore did not address whether a fictional product or service could be the basis of a trademark dilution claim, which generally prevents the use of a famous trademark in a way that lessens its uniqueness.