IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D.N.Y.: Infringement claims over ‘MOSAEC’ and ‘Mosaic Learning’ marks dismissed, (Mar 4, 2026)

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

The court held that a prior TTAB ruling precluded relitigating the issue of likelihood of confusion and that the complaint failed to plausibly allege likely confusion or bad faith.

The federal district court in Manhattan, New York, has dismissed a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit brought by a New York technology and media venture against an educational software company over the marks ‘MOSAEC’ and ‘Mosaic Learning.’ The court held that earlier proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) collaterally estopped the plaintiff from relitigating the likelihood-of-confusion issue for certain services, and that the complaint otherwise failed to plausibly allege consumer confusion or bad faith. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice but declined to impose sanctions against the plaintiff (RLP Ventures, LLC v. Mosaic Learning, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-09378-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2026)).

Background. RLP Ventures, LLC, a New York-based company operating a web platform offering digital content, social networking features, and educational and cultural information services, brought the action against Mosaic Learning, Inc., a technology company that develops SaaS-based educational training tools, simulations, and digital learning platforms used by institutional clients, including government agencies and labor organizations.

The dispute centered on RLP Ventures’ MOSAEC trademark, which the company had used since the 1990s in connection with a broad range of services and products, including entertainment information services, online content platforms, educational resources, and software applications. The mark was registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for services in multiple classes, including Class 41 for entertainment and information services and Class 42 for software-related services. Mosaic Learning used the mark “Mosaic Learning” in connection with business advisory services related to training programs (Class 35), educational curriculum development and consulting services (Class 41), and software development services (Class 42).

The dispute originated in an earlier administrative proceeding. In 2018, Mosaic Learning applied to register the “Mosaic Learning” mark, and RLP Ventures opposed the application before the TTAB under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), arguing that the mark was likely to cause confusion with MOSAEC. After extensive proceedings, the TTAB concluded that confusion was unlikely for the applicant’s Class 35 and Class 41 services but likely for Class 42 services. Following that decision, RLP Ventures filed the present lawsuit asserting trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114, unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), and related New York common-law claims. Mosaic Learning moved to dismiss the complaint and also sought sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927.

Collateral estoppel. The district court first addressed whether the TTAB ruling barred relitigating of the likelihood-of-confusion issue. Applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the court noted that issue preclusion applies when an identical issue was actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior proceeding. Citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001), and Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2008), the court concluded that those elements were satisfied with respect to Mosaic Learning’s services in Classes 35 and 41.

The court further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2015), which held that TTAB determinations can have a preclusive effect when the usages considered by the Board are materially the same as those presented in district court litigation. Reviewing the TTAB opinion and the allegations in the complaint, the court determined that the TTAB had considered the same marketplace uses of the marks that the plaintiff relied upon in the lawsuit. Because the TTAB had already found no likelihood of confusion for Classes 35 and 41, RLP Ventures was barred from relitigating that issue in federal court.

Confusion. The court then evaluated the remaining infringement allegations. To establish trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that its mark is protectable and that the defendant’s use of a similar mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. The court cited Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009), and Victorinox AG v. B & F Systems Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 132 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), as setting out the governing standard.

Even in instances where the TTAB’s decision did not preclude the claim—such as for the Class 42 services—the court concluded that the complaint failed to plausibly allege confusion. It emphasized that trademark law focuses on real-world marketplace conditions rather than theoretical similarities between marks. Citing Savin Corp. v. Savin Group, 391 F.3d 439 (2d Cir. 2004), the court explained that the central question is whether an appreciable number of ordinary consumers would likely be confused about the source or sponsorship of the goods.

The court found the plaintiff’s allegations implausible in light of the parties’ markedly different businesses. RLP Ventures’ website functioned largely as a cultural media and social networking platform offering articles, apparel, and books, whereas Mosaic Learning provided enterprise training software and consulting services primarily for institutional clients such as labor organizations and government agencies.

The court also noted the absence of any allegations of actual consumer confusion, such as mistaken purchases or misdirected inquiries, despite the parties’ concurrent use of their marks. The complaint’s suggestion that both companies might someday compete for government contracts was deemed a speculative possibility insufficient to support a trademark claim.

State law unfair competition. The court similarly dismissed the New York common-law unfair competition claim. Under New York law, such a claim requires both likelihood of confusion and bad faith. Citing Forschner Group, Inc. v. Arrow Trading Co., 124 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1997), the court held that the complaint plausibly alleged neither element. The pleadings contained no facts suggesting that Mosaic Learning knew of the MOSAEC mark when adopting its own mark or attempted to capitalize on the plaintiff’s reputation.

Because the plaintiff had already amended its complaint twice and had been warned that the latest amendment would be its final opportunity to cure deficiencies, the court concluded that further amendment would be futile and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Sanctions. Although the defendant argued that the lawsuit warranted sanctions, the court declined to impose them. While the claims ultimately lacked merit, the court determined that the plaintiff’s legal arguments, particularly regarding the preclusive effect of the TTAB ruling, were not objectively unreasonable. The court therefore denied sanctions under both Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-09378-NRB.

Judge: Buchwald, N.

Attorneys: Willard Alonzo Stanback (Willard Alonzo Stanback, PC) for RLP Ventures, LLC. Courtney Elizabeth Walter (Mitchell Sandler PLLC) for Mosaic Learning, Inc.

Companies: RLP Ventures, LLC; Mosaic Learning, Inc.

Cases: Trademark TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews