IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D.D.C.: Landlord not responsible for nightclub’s alleged Lanham Act violations from use of images, (Jul 27, 2026)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

Professional models sued the nightclub for its unlicensed use of their images on the nightclub’s website to promote its business.

The U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia held that the landlord of the property rented to a nightclub was not responsible for the nightclub’s alleged Lanham Act violation by its use of unlicensed images of professional models to promote the nightclub’s business. The court concluded that the models failed to prove that the landlord was contributory liable because they failed to prove direct liability under the Act and failed to show that the landlord induced or knew of the infringing violations (Pepaj v. Barcode Corp., No. 1:22-cv-01397-RDM (D.D.C. Jul. 22, 2026)).

The plaintiffs, professional models, had sued the nightclub for its unlicensed use of their images on the nightclub’s website to promote its business. The court entered a default judgment against the nightclub for failure to contest the claims against it. The current action relates to the models’ claims against the landlord for contributory liability under the Lanham Act.

The court stated that a claim for contributory liability under the Lanham Act must be premised on a valid claim of primary liability under the statute. Accordingly, the court analyzed the landlord’s primary and contributory liability under the Act.

Primary liability. The court stated that to prove contributory liability under the Lanham Act, the models had to establish primary liability by showing that the nightclub was a direct infringer under the Act. To prove this required a showing of both: (1) an economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception resulting from the nightclub’s advertising, and (2) that the deception of consumers caused them to withhold trade from the nightclub. The court ruled that neither of these requirements had been established. Because of this, the models’ contributory liability claims under the Lanham Act failed.

Contributory liability. Even though the court ruled that the models’ contributory liability claim failed as a matter of law because primary liability was not proven, it went on to discuss the requirements for contributory liability under the Lanham Act. Under Lanham Act Section 43(a) contributory liability is triggered if a party: (1) intentionally induces another party to violate Section 43(a), or (2) continues to supply its products to someone who that party knows or has reason to know may be engaging in a violation.

Here, the models had not plausibly alleged that the landlord had any specified knowledge of the alleged Lanham Act violations. Further, the models offered no facts that the landlord had any reason to discover the nightclub’s violations.

Court action. The court granted the landlord’s motion to dismiss the models’ claims against it.

The Case is No. 1:22-cv-01397-RDM.

Judge: Moss, R.

Attorneys: John V. Golaszewski (Casas Law Firm, P.C.) for Eva Pepaj.

Companies: Barcode Corp.

Cases: Trademark DistrictofColumbiaNews TechnologyInternet