IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—E.D.N.Y.: Insufficient description of plaintiff’s trade dress dooms infringement claim, (Oct 1, 2025)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

Trade dress and trademark infringement claims dismissed with prejudice; plaintiff did not adequately describe elements of trade dress for which it sought protection, its allegations concerned only functional elements, and plaintiff only provided conclusory allegations of secondary meaning.

A complaint brought by Christmas House USA Inc. (Plaintiff) alleging that ChristmasLand Experience LLC and others (Defendants) infringed the trade dress of its Christmas-themed immersive experience, fails to state a claim, the federal district court in Brooklyn, New York, has held. The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, and state law unfair competition claims, finding that the trade dress claim failed to describe with the requisite specificity the trade dress for which protection is sought, and in any event described only functional items. The trademark claim failed because Plaintiff did not allege infringement of its mark, but rather aspects of the experience it offers customers, which are protectable trademarks. And absent any infringement, there could be nothing “unfair” about Defendants’ attempts at competition. The court dismissed the claims with prejudice, and ordered the lawsuit terminated (Christmas House USA Inc. v. ChristmasLand Experience LLC, No. 2:23-cv-08412-LDH-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2025)).

Every year since 2020, Plaintiff has used the “CHRISTMAS HOUSE” trademark to provide a “fully immersive Christmas-themed experience” during the holiday season, typically in vacant store space rented in shopping malls. In 2023, after receiving favorable publicity, Plaintiff operated multiple experiences across New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, offering a walkthrough with several different rooms themed around Christmas sights, sounds, and smells.

Defendants, who Plaintiff had previously retained to provide social media marketing for the Christmas House attraction, began operating what Plaintiff alleges to be a similar Christmas-themed immersive experience using the trademark CHRISTMASLAND. Plaintiff learned about Defendants’ competing Christmas experience in November 2022. A prior lawsuit between the parties (filed in December 2022 and settled in February 2023) resulted in a settlement, after which Defendants again operated their ChristmasLand attraction for the 2023-2024 holiday season, leading to the instant lawsuit, in which Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, and state law unfair competition. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims.

Trademark infringement. In a prior order denying Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, the court held that Plaintiff’s allegations failed to support a trademark infringement claim. The court reached the same result in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim. As the court reasoned in denying the TRO, Plaintiff’s claims concern not the CHRISTMAS HOUSE trademark itself, but the alleged similarities between the parties’ Christmas-themed attractions and the experiences they provide. Those experiences, however, are not the rubric of trademark. Further, the court was skeptical that CHRISMAS HOUSE, which is a descriptive mark, is protectable.

Trade dress. The court also dismissed Plaintiff’s trade dress claims, finding that Plaintiff (1) failed to sufficiently describe its trade dress, (2) complained only of functional aspects of Christmas House, and (3) failed to allege secondary meaning.

Insufficient description. The court found insufficient Plaintiff’s description of the trade dress for which it sought protection. Aside from linking to its website and providing photographs, the entirety of Plaintiff’s description of its trade dress is that it includes “a room with holiday themed inflatables; a room with mirrors and Christmas lights; a Christmas-eve room; a room to toss snow balls; an optical illusion room; and a room to take pictures in a chair with Santa Claus surrounded by presents.” These allegations did not specify which features in the photographs or website links attached to the Complaint, or in the rooms, the court should consider to be protectable trade dress, and it is not the court’s job to distill those elements from the photographs or website.

Functionality. Similarly, the court agreed with Defendants that as pleaded, Plaintiff only complains about functional aspects of Christmas House, and trade dress does not protect functional items. The court noted that allegedly protected features such as a “room to take pictures with Santa” or “a room with holiday themed inflatables” are essential to any Christmas-themed attraction and are typical of such attractions at malls and department stores. As such, they are functional and not subject to trade dress protection.

Secondary meaning. Finally, while the court noted that secondary meaning analysis is typically fact-intensive and not suited for a motion to dismiss, here the complaint’s allegations make clear that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate secondary meaning. Plaintiff must be able to show that in the minds of the public, the feature for which protection is sought serves to identify the source of the product, rather than the product itself. Plaintiff’s only allegations for secondary meaning were that sales have risen, it has received favorable media coverage, and it has expanded to new locations. But the court pointed out that Plaintiff made no allegations about consumer studies linking the Christmas House mark to the source. Nor did it allege attempts to plagiarize the mark (other than by the Defendants in this lawsuit).

Further, while courts typically find that five years of continued use is the threshold for finding secondary meaning, Plaintiff’s two years of use prior to Defendants establishing ChristmasLand (or four years as of the time of the court’s decision), hardly reaches the benchmark. Finally, conclusory allegations of “tens of thousands of dollars” in advertising and unspecified social media publicity failed to move the needle.

The Case is No. 2:23-cv-08412-LDH-SIL.

Judge: Hall, L.

Attorneys: Jean-Marc Zimmerman (Lucosky Brookman LLP) for Christmas House USA Inc. Brad Michael Behar (Brad M. Hehar & Associates) for ChristmasLand Experience LLC.

Companies: Christmas House USA Inc.; Christmas Land Experience LLC; Jolt Marketing; RedMax Events

Cases: Trademark NewYorkNews