IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Conn.: Entertainment marketing company’s trademark claims survive against content promoter in ‘Zoellywood’ mark dispute, (Apr 1, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Plaintiff failed to plead actual commercial loss to sustain a damages claim, though the likelihood of confusion supported injunctive relief and state law claims.

A federal district court in Connecticut has granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss an entertainment branding company’s infringement and unfair competition lawsuit against an individual content promoter, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief under the Lanham Act while allowing claims for injunctive relief, common law trademark infringement, and unfair competition to proceed. The court held that although the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a likelihood of confusion and reputational harm, it failed to plead concrete commercial injury necessary to sustain a claim for damages (Aollywood, LLC v. Jean-Louis, No. 3:25-cv-01100-VAB (D. Conn. Mar. 30, 2026)).

The plaintiff, Aollywood, LLC, is a Florida-based company engaged in advertising, marketing, and entertainment services focused on Haitian, Zambian, and Zimbabwean culture, including music, film, and digital content. The defendant, Francise Jean-Louis, is an individual based in Connecticut who promotes Haitian cultural content and entertainment services through social media platforms. The dispute arose between parties operating in overlapping entertainment and cultural promotion spaces, targeting similar audiences through online channels.

The asserted marks were “Zollywood” and “Zoellywood,” which the plaintiff claimed to have used continuously in commerce since at least 2017 in connection with entertainment production, online retail, and cultural events. The defendant allegedly used an identical or confusingly similar mark—“Zoellywood”—on Instagram to promote entertainment-related services, including a film screening titled Life of a Zoe. The complaint also alleged that the defendant used trademark symbols in connection with the mark despite lacking any federal registration. The defendant had filed trademark applications in 2021 for “Zoellywood” (Serial No. 90835705) and “Zollywood” (Serial No. 90851133) covering business consulting services.

The plaintiff initially filed suit in Florida, but that action was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue, leading to refiling in Connecticut. Aollywood asserted claims for false association under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, as well as for common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, absence of standing, and failure to state a claim. The motion sought dismissal of all claims, contending that the plaintiff lacked enforceable rights, failed to demonstrate likelihood of confusion, and had not alleged any cognizable injury.

Jurisdiction. The court rejected Jean-Louis’s challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, holding that Aollywood’s Lanham Act claim was neither immaterial nor frivolous. Citing Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946), the court reiterated that jurisdiction exists where a federal claim forms a substantial basis for relief, even if its merits are disputed. Aollywood’s allegations of false designation of origin were sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction.

On the issue of personal jurisdiction, the court held that it had general jurisdiction over the defendant based on the defendant's domicile. Relying on Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021), the court concluded that an individual is subject to suit in her state of domicile, and the defendant’s residence in Connecticut satisfied due process requirements.

Standing and damages. The court drew a critical distinction between standing for injunctive relief and monetary damages. It held that the Aollywood adequately alleged Article III injury-in-fact through reputational harm, citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016).

However, the court dismissed Aollywood’s claim for damages under the Lanham Act. It held that monetary relief requires allegations of actual sales diversion or quantifiable loss. Aollywood’s assertions of potential customer diversion and confusion were insufficient, absent concrete evidence of lost sales or measurable harm. Accordingly, the damages claim was dismissed without prejudice.

False association. The court held that the Aollywood plausibly alleged a false association claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). It noted that a plaintiff needs only to show ownership of a valid mark, use by the defendant in commerce without consent, and likelihood of confusion.

Applying the Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961), factors, the court found that several considerations favored Aollywood. The marks were nearly identical; the parties operated in the same entertainment niche, and both used similar marketing channels, including social media. The court emphasized that even sophisticated consumers could be confused by nearly identical branding on platforms such as Instagram.

Jean-Louis’s arguments regarding lack of commercial harm and alleged fabrication of evidence were rejected at the pleading stage, as they went to the merits rather than the sufficiency of the complaint.

Trademark infringement. The court allowed the common law trademark infringement claim to proceed, holding that registration was not required to assert trademark rights. Citing Tally-Ho, Inc. v. Coast Community College District, 889 F.2d 1018 (11th Cir. 1989), it reiterated that common law rights arise through use. Aollywood sufficiently alleged prior use dating back to 2017, predating the defendant’s 2021 trademark applications. The court also rejected the defendant’s reliance on her trademark filings and purported good faith, noting that such arguments did not defeat the claim at the pleading stage.

Unfair competition. The court likewise sustained the unfair competition claim under Florida common law. Citing Monsanto Co. v. Campuzano, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (S.D. Fla. 2002), it observed that the standards for unfair competition largely mirror those for trademark infringement, with likelihood of confusion as the central inquiry. The plaintiff adequately alleged deceptive conduct by asserting that the defendant deliberately used identical or similar marks to promote competing services and mislead consumers. The court found these allegations sufficient to state a claim, particularly given the overlap in services and branding.

Thus, the court permitted the case to proceed on claims for false association, common law trademark infringement, and unfair competition, while dismissing the Lanham Act claim for monetary damages without prejudice.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-01100-VAB.

Judge: Bolden, V.

Attorneys: Brian C. Roche (Roche Pia LLC) for Aollywood, LLC. Francise Jean-Louis, pro se.

Companies: Aollywood, LLC

Cases: Trademark TechnologyInternet ConnecticutNews GCNNews