Abstract
Trademark law has traditionally focused on cases of forward confusion, where consumers mistakenly believe that the goods or services of a junior user originate from or are connected with a senior trademark owner. However, the contemporary commercial environment characterized by celebrity endorsements, social media visibility, and large-scale marketing has amplified the importance of the doctrine of reverse confusion. Reverse confusion arises when a powerful junior user saturates the market with a trademark identical or similar to that of a smaller, earlier adopter, leading consumers to assume that the senior user is affiliated with, sponsored by, or subordinate to the junior user. This paper explores the scope and implications of reverse confusion through an analysis of the dispute between Hailey Bieber’s skincare brand “Rhode” and the pre-existing fashion label “Rhode,” founded in 2014.
The discussion begins by distinguishing reverse confusion from traditional trademark infringement, emphasizing the unique harm suffered by senior users whose brand identity, goodwill, and commercial autonomy may be diluted by the junior user’s dominance. The paper then outlines the background of the original Rhode fashion brand, its development within the luxury apparel market, and its efforts to protect its trademark rights. This is followed by an examination of the 2022 launch of Bieber’s skincare brand, whose extensive promotional reach and global recognition triggered concerns of reverse confusion. The significance of prior negotiations in 2018, demonstrating the junior user’s awareness of the senior user’s mark, is also analyzed.
The legal framework governing the dispute is assessed under the Lanham Act, with particular reference to the Lapp factors used to determine the likelihood of confusion. The paper evaluates how these factors are applied in reverse confusion cases and critically examines the court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction. The court’s reasoning centering on the perceived limited national strength of the senior mark, the distinction between fashion and skincare markets, and insufficient evidence of actual confusion is discussed in detail. Additionally, the role of trademark filings before the USPTO and proceedings involving the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board illustrates the procedural complexities of trademark enforcement.
The paper concludes by addressing the 2024 settlement and co-existence agreement, highlighting how negotiated resolutions often provide practical outcomes in complex trademark disputes. Overall, the Rhode v. Rhode case exemplifies the evolving challenges of trademark protection in markets shaped by celebrity branding and underscores the growing relevance of reverse confusion in modern intellectual property law.
Introduction
Trademark laws protect businesses, customers and the market which ensures that the trademark owners possess the right to protect their brand identity and protects them from any confusion arising when two parties use similar marks in commerce. In most infringement cases, the concern is that a newcomer (significantly known as the junior user) adopts a trademark resembling that of an established senior user, causing the public to mistakenly believe that the junior user’s goods or services originated from, or are associated with the senior user.
However, trademark law also recognises a complex phenomenon, but equally significant doctrine known as “Reverse confusion”. Reverse confusion arises when a smaller, earlier adopter of a trademark faces marketplace domination by a much larger and powerful junior user. This junior user, often backed by extensive financial resources and massive promotional campaigns, can overshadow the senior user’s brand to such an extent that the public begins to assume the senior user’s products are associated with, sponsored by, or stem from the junior user. Such type of confusion harms the senior user by diminishing the individuality and goodwill they have developed over the years.
This theory has been demonstrated by the conflict between Hailey Beiber’s skincare brand “Rhode” and the pre-existing fashion label “Rhode”, which was established in 2014. The legal issues addressed in this case provide a valuable opportunity to analyze how reverse confusion operate under the Lanhma Act and how courts establish the likelihood of such confusion.