IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D.N.Y.: Author’s trademark claim against Simon & Schuster will proceed, all other claims dismissed, (Sep 17, 2026)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

Publisher failed to show why its use of author’s "Triple Crown Publications" mark was contractually authorized.

A federal court in Manhattan trimmed an author's five-count suit against Simon & Schuster down to a single trademark claim, ruling that the publisher's decades-old contracts to print, distribute, and license the author’s books electronically and in audio form squarely authorized the very conduct she cast as breach, fraud, and infringement. However, the court declined to dismiss the author’s claim that the publisher kept using her company's name after their relationship ended without ever explaining why that use was permitted (Stringer v. Simon & Schuster, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00670-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 15, 2026)).

Background. The author and Simon & Schuster entered into six publishing agreements between 2003 and 2011 covering nine books, each granting the publisher the exclusive right to publish the works and to exercise or license subsidiary rights, including electronic text rights and audio rights, as defined in the agreements. After a dispute over the termination of a separate Sales and Distribution Services Agreement between Simon & Schuster and the author's company, Triple Crown Publications, the parties reached a 2014 settlement under which the publisher paid Stringer $25,000 and clarified that prior royalty advances would not be used to offset future royalties. The author later alleged that Simon & Schuster continued "accounting manipulation" after the settlement, concealed subsidiary rights revenue, distributed her works in unauthorized formats and platforms, and used the Triple Crown Publications mark without authorization.

Simon & Schuster moved to dismiss the operative fourth amended complaint in its entirety under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).

Breach of contract, fiduciary duty, fraud and copyright claims. The court found that the author's breach of contract theory failed both because she never identified the specific contractual provisions Simon & Schuster breached and because the conduct she challenged, namely electronic distribution, audiobook releases, and cross-platform licensing, was expressly authorized by the agreements. The court also rejected as meritless and contradicted by her own exhibits, the author's argument that no agreement covered her book Dirty Red, noting the 2014 settlement expressly confirmed that the October 2003 agreement covered that title. The author’s allegations about "deferred" columns in royalty statements and concealed subsidiary rights revenue were deemed conclusory and, in the case of an October 2024 email she cited as evidence of concealment, actually concerned sales projections predating the relevant agreements.

The fiduciary duty claim was dismissed as duplicative of the contract claim and, independently, because the author failed to allege a relationship transcending an ordinary author-publisher business relationship, which New York courts have consistently held does not give rise to fiduciary obligations absent extraordinary circumstances.

The fraud and fraudulent concealment claims, centered on an April 2025 email stating there were no active subsidiary rights licenses, failed under Rule 9(b) because Stringer did not adequately plead intent to defraud, reliance, or resulting damage; the court noted that the author’s own complaint, filed three months before the email, undercut any claim of reliance. Remaining fraud allegations were duplicative of the contract claim and were also dismissed.

The copyright infringement claim was dismissed because the publishing agreements' broad grants of electronic and audio rights constituted a valid license covering the conduct the author challenged, and use of a copyrighted work within the scope of a valid license is non-infringing as a matter of law.

Trademark claim. The court declined to dismiss the Lanham Act claim. Simon & Schuster argued its use of the Triple Crown Publications mark was authorized by a contractual provision permitting publication under "any imprint of Publisher or its affiliates," but the court found the publisher failed to explain how that language extended to the mark, particularly given the author's allegation that Simon & Schuster had declared its 2011 agreement with Triple Crown Publications "null and void" in 2012.

Because the author did not request further leave to amend and had already amended four times, the court dismissed the contract, fiduciary duty, fraud, and copyright claims with prejudice, and denied as moot her request for leave to file a partial summary judgment motion on the copyright claim.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-00670-MKV.

Judge: Vyskocil, M.

Attorneys: Vickie M. Stringer, pro se. Reginald E. Janvier (Akerman LLP) for Simon & Schuster LLC.

Companies: Simon & Schuster LLC

Cases: Trademark Copyright NewYorkNews