IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—E.D.N.Y.: Spanish nobleman can assert false endorsement claims against defendant alleged to have falsely presented himself as part of noble family, (Nov 21, 2025)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

Defendant allegedly adopted surnames of nobleman’s family and used this false identity in promoting motorcycle businesses with the intent to confuse consumers into thinking those businesses were associated with noble family’s well-known automotives.

Finding that a claim for false endorsement and false advertising under the Lanham Act was not futile, based on allegations that Marco Antonion Soriano falsely adopted that surname in connection with two businesses to claim a false “legacy” related to innovations by a Spanish nobleman, a federal magistrate judge in Central Islip, New York has granted Felipe Thomas Y de la Gandara (the 5th Marques de Ivanrey and heir to the Spanish noble family with the Soriano surname) leave to amend his complaint to add that claim. The court also granted de la Gandara leave to add an unjust enrichment claim, but denied leave to add a claim for violation of the right of publicity under the laws of Spain, because that law cannot be enforced extraterritorially against conduct alleged to have taken place in the United States (de la Gandara v. Soriano, No. 2:25-cv-02242-FB-JMW (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2025)).

False “legacy” allegations. The plaintiff, de la Gandara, resides in Switzerland and holds a Spanish nobility title. He alleges that his great-grandfather, the 2d Marques de Ivanrey with the surname Soriano, built and designed motorcycles, cars, and boats, and is a well-known figure in the automotive industry. He further alleges that Soriano has falsely adopted that surname and used it in connection with two businesses, “The Soriano Family Office Group” and “Soriano Motori,” to sell electric motorcycles purportedly derived from the 2d Marques de Ivanrey’s inventions. For example, Soriano’s social media posts include references to de la Gandara’s great-grandfather and great-great grandfather, and the vehicles the great-grandfather designed. Soriano also has stated that the 1st and 2d Marques de Ivanrey created the Soriano Family Office Group, which de la Gandara alleges is untrue. These false associations, de la Gandara alleges, mislead consumers into believing that Soriano’s goods and services are associated with de la Gandara and his family, causing damage, harming goodwill, and creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source and origin of Soriano’s good and services.

Based on these allegations, de la Gandara sued Soriano, alleging claims for unfair competition and false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, cancellation of a trademark that Soriano registered (Reg. No. 6,484,198 covering the “S M & Design” mark), and violations of New York statutory law, including unfair competition, deceptive acts and practices, and false advertising. de la Gandara then moved to amend his complaint to (1) articulate that his Lanham Act claim is for false endorsement as well as false advertising, (2) add a claim for violation of the right of publicity under the law of Spain, and (3) add an unjust enrichment claim under New York common law. Soriano did not object to the motion, but the court nonetheless examined each of the proposed claims to determine whether any of them was futile, which is a basis for denying leave to amend.

False endorsement. Stating a Section 43(a) false endorsement claim requires allegations that the defendant (1) in commerce, (2) made a false or misleading factual representation, (3) in connection with goods or services, (4) that is likely to cause consumer confusion as to origin, sponsorship, or approval of the defendant’s goods or services. The court found that de la Gandara’s proposed amendments pleaded the required elements.

de la Gandara alleged that Soriano made false statements of his affiliation with de la Gandara and his family in promotional social media posts and advertisements, with the goal of inducing consumers to purchase Soriano’s goods and services. He also alleged that those false statements are likely to confuse or deceive “a substantial segment” of Soriano’s audience as to the affiliation connection, or association with de la Gandara’s family and its notoriety within the automotive industry. Further, because Soriano is falsely associating himself with de la Gandara’s family, where no such familial tie exists, he is likely to deceive consumers into believing that Soriano’s electric motorcycles are affiliated with the real Soriano family (the family of the Marques de Ivanrey). The court held that de la Gandara thus plausibly alleged a likelihood of confusion, and the false endorsement claim is not futile.

Unjust enrichment. The court similarly held that this claim would not be futile, based on the allegations that Soriano made misleading statements of fact in his promotional materials to confuse or deceive a substantial segment of his audience into believing his businesses were affiliated with de la Gandara’s family. Further, de la Gandara alleged that allowing Soriano to benefit from this false association and resulting consumer deception would result in unjust enrichment.

Right of publicity. The court held that de la Gandara’s right of publicity claim under the law of Spain would be futile and denied leave to amend to add this claim. All of Soriano’s alleged misconduct took place in New York, and courts have long held that the laws of a foreign country have no extraterritorial effect in United States courts with respect to acts occurring in the United States.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-02242-FB-JMW.

Judge: Wicks, J.

Attorneys: Airina L. Rodrigues (Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP) for Felipe Thomas Y. De La Gandara. Giacomo Bossa (Barakat Bossa PLLC) for Marco Antonion Soriano.

Companies: The Soriano Family Office Group; Soriano Motori

Cases: Trademark PublicityRights NewYorkNews GCNNews