October Term 2004 · Docket 03-409
Does trademark fair use require proof of no consumer confusion?
KP Permanent Make-Up argues the fair-use defense applies regardless of confusion. Lasting Impression argues confusion defeats the defense.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Millett cited a prior case to show fair use can exist despite potential confusion.
Ms. Brinkmann argued that an absolute fair-use defense contradicts the Lanham Act's text and history.
Mr. Machat stated the case concerns whether fair-use defendants must prove no likelihood of confusion.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 21-60 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 21-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 1-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 1-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-35
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on the Lanham Act fair-use defense. KP Permanent Make-Up seeks to use this defense without proving a lack of consumer confusion. Lasting Impression argues that consumer confusion must defeat the defense. The lower court ruled against KP Permanent Make-Up on this issue.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 21-60 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 21-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 5, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
KP Permanent Make-Up wants the Court to hold that fair use applies even if consumer confusion exists.
Lasting Impression wants the Court to hold that consumer confusion defeats the fair-use defense.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 21-60 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 21-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What each side says
KP Permanent Make-Up argues that meeting statutory fair-use requirements is sufficient, regardless of confusion.
Lasting Impression argues that the fair-use defense is contrary to the Lanham Act's purpose if confusion exists.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 21-60 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 21-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What the justices asked
Justice O'Connor asked if consumer confusion is a factor in determining what constitutes fair use.
Justice Scalia asked if the only question is whether the fair-use provision is an exception when confusion exists.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 1-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 1-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-35
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of the trademark fair-use defense. It determines whether businesses can use similar marks if they act in good faith. The outcome affects how companies navigate trademark disputes and consumer protection laws.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 21-60 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 21-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 1-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 1-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-35
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 21-60 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 21-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 21-60 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 21-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.