IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D.N.Y.: Amazon Studios, Paramount secure dismissal of trademark lawsuit over ‘The Love Zone’ mark, (Jun 15, 2026)

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

Use of the asserted mark in a fictional radio program within a television episode was artistically relevant and did not explicitly mislead viewers into believing the trademark owner endorsed or produced the show.

The federal court in New York dismissed trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution claims brought by a longtime radio host against Amazon Studios LLC and Paramount Television Studios LLC over the use of “The Love Zone” in an episode of the television series Cross. The court held that the challenged use was protected under the test established in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), because the reference had artistic relevance to the episode and did not explicitly mislead consumers about the program's source or sponsorship. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related New York-law claims after dismissing the federal causes of action (Watts v. Amazon Studios LLC, No. 1:25-cv-08642-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 9, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Maurice Watts, is a New York radio personality who has hosted and produced the radio program “The Love Zone” since the early 1980s. Watts owns a federal trademark registration for THE LOVE ZONE and alleged that the mark had developed substantial goodwill and secondary meaning among listeners. The defendants, Amazon Studios LLC and Paramount Television Studios LLC, produced and distributed the television series Cross, which streams on Amazon Prime Video.

The dispute arose from a November 2024 episode of Cross. In a scene lasting approximately six and a half minutes, the protagonist, Alex Cross, listened to a fictional radio show called “The Love Zone.” The radio host, identified as “Vaughn Pope,” spoke in a deep baritone voice, invited listeners to call in with song requests, and discussed Cross’s memories of his late wife. Defendants did not obtain a license from Watts to use the name. Following the episode’s release, several listeners and acquaintances contacted Watts, believing that he had entered into a business arrangement with Amazon or Paramount. Watts subsequently filed suit asserting claims for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114, false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. §1125(c), common-law trademark infringement, and unfair competition. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Rogers test. The court concluded that the Lanham Act claims were governed by the Rogers v. Grimaldi framework, which balances trademark rights against First Amendment interests when a mark is used in an expressive work. Under Rogers, trademark liability may arise only if the challenged use lacks artistic relevance or explicitly misleads consumers as to source or content.

The court found little difficulty satisfying the first prong. Watts himself acknowledged that the fictional radio show served as an emotional anchor for the protagonist’s grief and memories of his marriage. The court observed that the relaxed and romantic atmosphere created by the fictional radio program contributed directly to the episode’s storytelling and emotional impact. Because the reference was relevant to the narrative and not chosen merely to exploit the value of Watts’s mark, the court held that the artistic-relevance requirement was satisfied.

Likelihood of confusion. The court next examined whether the use explicitly misled viewers regarding sponsorship or source. Applying the factors under Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., the court concluded that the factors overwhelmingly favored the defendants.

Although the court accepted Watts’s allegations that the mark possessed goodwill and that some listeners had actually been confused, it found that the relevant comparison was between Watts’s radio program and the Cross episode as a whole, not between Watts’s show and the fictional radio program depicted within the episode. The court determined that the parties operated in entirely different markets: Watts used the mark to identify and promote a radio program, whereas the defendants used the name as part of a fictional television narrative. The court also found no plausible allegation that Watts intended to enter the scripted television market.

The court further noted that viewers were unlikely to assume sponsorship because the fictional program differed from Watts’s actual show in important respects. The fictional program was set in Washington, D.C., featured a different host, and operated as a call-in request show. The court concluded that ordinary viewers would not infer from a brief reference within a television episode that Watts had endorsed or participated in the production. Any confusion alleged by Watts was insufficient to overcome the First Amendment interests protected by Rogers.

Jack Daniel’s argument. Watts argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140 (2023), rendered Rogers inapplicable to the current dispute. The court rejected that argument. It explained that Jack Daniel’s involved use of a mark as a source identifier for the defendant’s own product, whereas the use here served an expressive storytelling function within a fictional television episode. The court found no plausible basis to conclude that viewers would regard the reference as identifying the source of the television series itself.

The court also rejected Watts’s contention that the Rogers analysis could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Citing prior trademark decisions applying Rogers at the pleading stage, the court concluded that the episode itself demonstrated the implausibility of consumer confusion. Accordingly, it dismissed all Lanham Act claims with prejudice.

State-law claims. Having dismissed the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Watts’s New York trademark infringement and unfair competition claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3). Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-08642-JPO.

Judge: Oetken, J.

Attorneys: Lynn Roberts, III (Roberts Legal Group) for Maurice Watts. Elizabeth A. McNamara (Davis Wright Tremaine LLP) for Amazon Studios, LLC.

Companies: Amazon Studios, LLC

Cases: Trademark NewYorkNews TechnologyInternet