⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Two products with nearly the same name lead to a trademark dispute. Amarte sells an eye cream called EYECONIC. Kendo and Marc Jacobs sold EYE-CONIC eye shadow through retailers including Sephora. Amarte says the name confused consumers about who made or authorized the products. It sued in 2022, after Kendo had discontinued the line. The district judge ruled for the defendants without a trial. That was summary judgment: a decision that no genuine dispute about facts material to the result required a trial, and the defendants were entitled to win under the law. Looking at packaging, prominent company names and other marketplace evidence, the judge found no triable likelihood of confusion. Much of this argument turns on two kinds of confusion. Forward confusion means a buyer thinks the defendants' eye shadow comes from, or is sponsored by, Amarte. Reverse confusion goes the other way: a buyer thinks the Amarte product comes from the larger Marc Jacobs business. The concern is that a bigger brand may overwhelm a smaller, earlier user of a name. The district court addressed forward confusion and concluded that reverse confusion had not been pleaded. The judges will press Amarte on whether its complaint and briefs properly preserved the arguments it now wants to make. Amarte will insist both theories were in the case and that its consumer survey required a jury's consideration. The defendants will argue that it cannot change theories on appeal. The defendants will also invoke laches: a defense based on unreasonable delay in suing that prejudices the other side. A separate award of defense legal fees is also at issue. The law allows those fees in exceptional cases, not simply because one side lost. Celeste Butera of Lippes Mathias will present Amarte's appeal first.

Amarte USA Holdings, Inc. v. Kendo Holdings, Inc., et al. (No. 24-6099) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 21, 2026.