IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—5th Cir.: Lanham Act claims revived; trade secrets claims properly denied in educator services dispute, (Feb 17, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Evidence of actual confusion precluded summary judgment on trademark claims, but asserted materials and databases were not protectable trade secrets.

In a non-precedential disposition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part a district court’s summary judgment ruling in a trademark and trade secrets dispute between Louisiana education service providers. The court reversed summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim, holding that declarations and misdirected communications created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding actual confusion. However, it affirmed summary judgment on claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, finding that the asserted materials were either not subject to reasonable secrecy measures or were readily ascertainable. The court also affirmed dismissal of certain LUTPA and fiduciary-duty claims for lack of damages but vacated the dismissal of remaining state-law claims (Associated Professional Educators of Louisiana v. EDU20/20, L.L.C., No. 24-30640 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff/appellant, Associated Professional Educators of Louisiana (A+PEL), is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that provides professional development and certification training services to educators, including state-approved Mentor Teacher programs. The defendants-appellees include EDU20/20, L.L.C., an educational support organization that offers curriculum coaching and instructional services to school districts; Miranda Britt, a former Deputy Director of A+PEL; and Courtney Dumas, a co-founder of EDU20/20.

In the lawsuit, A+PEL asserted three categories of trade secrets: (1) its Mentor Teacher training materials; (2) a “Client List” consisting of school districts and specific points of contact developed through years of industry relationships; and (3) a “Member Database” containing members’ names, employment information, email addresses, payment details, and other identifying information. A+PEL alleged that it stored these materials on secure systems accessible only through password-protected logins. As to trademark rights, A+PEL alleged continuous and exclusive use of the name “A+PEL” and its associated logo in interstate commerce since 1984.

The dispute unfolded after Britt delivered EDU20/20 presentations to school districts while still employed at A+PEL. In certain presentations, Britt displayed A+PEL’s logo and included slides identifying herself as associated with EDU20/20, which A+PEL alleged created confusion as to affiliation or sponsorship. School district personnel later declared that they assumed an association between A+PEL and EDU20/20. A+PEL also alleged that Britt accessed its Member Database shortly before resigning and that EDU20/20 used overlapping presentation materials in subsequent programs.

A+PEL filed suit in the Western District of Louisiana, asserting claims under the Lanham Act, the DTSA, LUTSA, LUTPA, along with breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy. After discovery, both sides filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The district court granted defendants’ motions and denied A+PEL’s motions, holding that A+PEL failed to establish a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act, failed to prove the existence of protectable trade secrets, and failed to demonstrate damages for certain state-law claims. Having dismissed the federal claims, the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. A+PEL appealed.

Likelihood of confusion. The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment on the trademark claim. To establish infringement under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must show ownership of a protectable mark and a likelihood of confusion. Citing Bd. of Supervisors for La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co., 550 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2008), the court emphasized that the likelihood of confusion is a fact-intensive inquiry assessed through multiple nonexclusive factors.

The district court had concluded that A+PEL failed to produce sufficient evidence of actual confusion. The Fifth Circuit disagreed. It relied on declarations from school district officials who stated that they assumed an affiliation between A+PEL and EDU20/20 after seeing A+PEL’s logo in Britt’s EDU20/20 presentations. At the summary judgment stage, the court explained, it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

The appellate court also cited Elvis Presley Enters. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1998), for the principle that infringement may arise from initial-interest confusion, even if no sale is completed. Additionally, the court held that misdirected communications may serve as evidence of confusion. An email inquiry sent to Britt’s A+PEL address regarding EDU20/20 services suggested that potential customers were confused about the relationship between the entities. Because this evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact, summary judgment was improper.

Mentor Teacher training materials. The court next addressed the DTSA and LUTSA claims. Under both statutes, a plaintiff must prove the existence of a trade secret that is subject to reasonable secrecy measures and derives independent economic value from not being generally known.

The Fifth Circuit held that A+PEL’s Mentor Teacher training materials did not qualify as trade secrets because A+PEL shared them with program participants without imposing confidentiality obligations. Relying on Sheets v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 849 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1988), the court explained that disclosure to individuals under no duty of confidentiality defeats trade secret protection. A+PEL did not contend that participants were bound by nondisclosure agreements.

Client List. As to the Client List, the court found that A+PEL failed to produce competent summary judgment evidence establishing its existence as described. Defendants had challenged whether the documents produced in discovery constituted the alleged confidential list. A+PEL did not identify specific record evidence substantiating its claim.

Citing Edwards v. Continental Casualty Co., 841 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2016), the court reiterated that a nonmovant must identify specific evidence in the record to defeat summary judgment. The court declined to “sift through the record” on A+PEL’s behalf. Because A+PEL failed to demonstrate the existence of the alleged trade secret with competent evidence, its claim failed.

Member database. The Fifth Circuit also rejected the trade secret claim based on the Member Database. Although the database contained contact and payment information, A+PEL failed to demonstrate that the information was not readily ascertainable or that its secrecy conferred a competitive advantage.

Distinguishing Zoecon Industries v. American Stockman Tag Co., 713 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1983), the court explained that those cases involved customer lists containing commercially sensitive data, such as purchasing history or revenue figures. Here, much of the Member Database information concerned educators employed by public school districts and was obtainable through public records requests under Louisiana law. A+PEL also failed to show that maintaining the information as confidential provided an independent economic benefit.

LUTPA and fiduciary duty. The court further affirmed summary judgment on LUTPA and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims to the extent they were premised on the use of the logo or on alleged misuse of confidential information. Citing Johnson Construction Co. v. Shaffer, 87 So. 3d 203 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2012), the court held that A+PEL failed to identify record evidence linking Britt’s conduct to ascertainable damages. Temporal inconsistencies in the record undermined A+PEL’s claims that alleged confusion caused specific lost contracts.

Because the Lanham Act claim was reinstated, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remanded those claims for further proceedings.

Judge Oldham’s concurrence. Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham concurred in the judgment but issued a separate opinion. He agreed that evidence of actual confusion precluded summary judgment on the Lanham Act claim. However, he disagreed with the majority’s reasoning on trade secrets. In his view, the Client List and Member Database qualified as trade secrets under Zoecon because they contained hard-to-compile contact information and were subject to protective measures. Nevertheless, he agreed that summary judgment was appropriate because A+PEL failed to show misappropriation of those alleged trade secrets.

The Case is No. 24-30640.

Judge: Douglas, D.

Attorneys: Jonathan David Stokes (Chadwick, Odom, & Stokes, LLC) for Associated Professional Educators of Louisiana. Bradley Loy Drell (Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell) for Edu20/20, L.L.C.

Companies: Edu20/20, L.L.C.

Cases: Trademark LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews GCNNews