Patent and trademark – News publication enjoined from rebranding itself as “The Star”

Where a media company that owns THE WASHINGTON STAR trademark moved to restrain another news publication from rebranding itself as “The Star,” it was granted a TRO. It showed that it owned a valid and protectable mark, and that the defendant’s use of that mark creates a likelihood of confusion.

Background

Plaintiff owns the trademark THE WASHINGTON STAR and operates websites and media properties under that name. The Washington Star was also previously a daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C. between 1852 and 1981. Defendant is a news publication based in the Washington, D.C. area that intends to imminently rebrand itself as “The Star.” This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s emergency motion for temporary restraining order, or TRO.

Likelihood of success

To demonstrate trademark infringement, a plaintiff must show both that it owns a valid and protectable mark, and that the defendant’s use of a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of that mark creates a likelihood of confusion.

Plaintiff has demonstrated that it is likely to show that it owns a valid and protectable mark because it owns the federal registration of the THE WASHINGTON STAR mark. Plaintiff has also used the mark since 2023 in connection with news, information and commentary services.

As to the second element, plaintiff has provided evidence of publications and posts touting the resurrection of the former The Washington Star newspaper by defendant and otherwise directly associating “The Star” with the Washington Star mark. Although defendant has proffered a survey suggesting that there may not be a likelihood of confusion among the general adult population in the country, both parties specifically target the Washington, D.C. area with their coverage, and the court finds the survey somewhat inapposite.

Courts have also indicated that the strength or distinctiveness factor is paramount in these cases. Here, the mark is properly categorized as an arbitrary mark because it applies a common word to a product to which it otherwise has no connection. The mark had accumulated significant goodwill during the 128 years of the original paper’s run, and plaintiff has provided evidence that consumers in the relevant market continue to recognize The Washington Star name.

“The Star” is substantially similar to “THE WASHINGTON STAR,” where both are primarily used in the Washington, D.C. area. Moreover, both parties provide news, information and commentary on business, politics and current events through internet websites and digital media targeted at a D.C. audience. Plaintiff has also provided evidence that defendant had actual knowledge of plaintiff’s rights in the mark — specifically, the email communications regarding the attempt to purchase the mark earlier this year — and then chose to use a mark with substantial similarity to the mark that it had failed to purchase.

Remaining elements

In Lanham Act cases involving trademark infringement, a presumption of irreparable injury is generally applied once the plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of confusion. The only hardship defendant would suffer from a TRO would be the requirement to follow clearly established trademark law. In contrast, in the absence of temporary relief, plaintiff will likely face significant infringement of its rights under the Lanham Act. The court finds a $100,000 bond appropriate.

Scope

Defendant is enjoined from using The Star or The Washington Star and the like and is enjoined from representing an affiliation with plaintiff.

However, requiring defendant to remove references to The Star from its websites or other materials which currently exist in the public domain would not maintain the status quo; rather, it would alter it. Thus, the court will not require defendant to take down any current references.

Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order granted in part, denied in part.

The Washington Star Company, LLC v. Notus Media, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-1458, June 2, 2026. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 026-3-247. 11 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-3-247