Lexplug logoLexplug

Museum Art v. Momacha Ip LLC

District Court, S.D. Illinois
339 F. Supp. 3d 361 (2018)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A preliminary injunction is warranted in a trademark infringement case when the plaintiff demonstrates irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits, which is established by showing that the defendant's use of a similar mark for related goods is likely to cause consumer confusion.


Facts:

  • The Museum of Modern Art ('Museum'), founded in 1929, is a world-renowned art institution in New York City.
  • For nearly 50 years, the Museum has been widely known by its acronym and registered trademark, 'MoMA,' using a distinctive logo with a proprietary font called 'MoMA Gothic.'
  • The Museum operates retail stores ('MoMA Design Store') and offers café and restaurant services within its facilities under the MoMA mark.
  • In April 2018, MOMACHA opened a café and art gallery in New York City, in close proximity to a MoMA Design Store.
  • MOMACHA initially used a 'MoMaCha' logo with a font, coloring, and capitalization style strikingly similar to the Museum's 'MoMA' logo.
  • MOMACHA sold beverages and displayed modern artwork for sale, services which are also offered by the Museum.
  • MOMACHA filed trademark applications to register both 'MOMACHA' and 'MOMA' for beverage and café services.
  • After the lawsuit was initiated, MOMACHA altered its logo and added disclaimers of affiliation, but continued to use the original, more similar logo on some items like coffee cups.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Museum of Modern Art sued MOMACHA IP LLC and MOMACHA OP LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a federal trial court.
  • The complaint alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution.
  • The Museum filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit MOMACHA from using the MOMA or MOMACHA marks during the pendency of the lawsuit.
  • MOMACHA opposed the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a café's use of the name 'MOMACHA' and a visually similar logo create a likelihood of consumer confusion with the famous 'MoMA' trademark, warranting a preliminary injunction against the café for trademark infringement?


Opinions:

Majority - Stanton, J.

Yes. A preliminary injunction is warranted because the café's use of its name and logo creates a likelihood of consumer confusion with the Museum of Modern Art's famous 'MoMA' trademark. The court applied the eight-factor Polaroid test and found that most factors weighed in favor of the Museum. The Museum's 'MoMA' mark is exceptionally strong and famous. MOMACHA's original logo was highly similar in appearance, using a nearly identical font, color scheme, and capitalization style. The parties operate in close competitive proximity, as both offer modern art displays and café services to a similar audience in the same city. The Museum presented anecdotal evidence of actual consumer confusion on social media, even after MOMACHA altered its logo. The court found circumstantial evidence of bad faith, concluding it was probable that MOMACHA intentionally copied the Museum's mark to capitalize on its reputation, a conclusion bolstered by MOMACHA's attempt to register the 'MOMA' mark for itself. Because this confusion would cause irreparable harm to the Museum's reputation and goodwill, and the balance of hardships favors the Museum, an injunction is appropriate.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the broad protection afforded to famous trademarks under the Lanham Act, particularly within the Second Circuit's Polaroid framework. It underscores that a defendant's post-litigation, partial cessation of infringing activity will not shield it from an injunction if the original, more infringing conduct persists in any form. The court's willingness to find a likelihood of success based on strong circumstantial evidence of bad faith and anecdotal evidence of actual confusion provides a powerful tool for senior mark holders. This case serves as a clear warning to new businesses against adopting marks that closely mimic well-known brands in the same geographic and commercial markets.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Museum Art v. Momacha Ip LLC (2018) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Museum Art v. Momacha Ip LLC