IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D.N.Y.: Request for preliminary injunction against a manufacturer of wearable carriers for toddlers denied, (Nov 6, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Wildbird LLC failed to prove a likelihood of success on its claims of trademark infringement and failed to prove irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction were denied.

Wildbird LLC failed to establish that Wildride B.V. and Wildride USA Corp.’s use of its own marks is likely to cause consumer confusion between their two brands, the federal district court in New York City has held, denying Wildbird’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Additionally, the district court found that the material dissimilarities between the marks and lack of evidence showing actual consumer confusion weighed strongly against a finding that Wildbird is likely to succeed on its trademark infringement claims (Wildbird LLC v. Wildride B.V., No. 1:25-cv-05993-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2025)).

Background. Wildbird LLC (Wildbird) is a manufacturer of wearable baby carriers and uses the Wildbird word mark and the Wildbird logo (together, Wildbird marks). Wildride B.V. and its U.S.-based subsidiary, Wildride USA Corp. (together, Wildride) manufacture wearable carriers for toddlers. Wildride's carrier is not designed, marketed, or recommended for newborns, infants, or babies. Wildride uses two stylized marks featuring a cheetah head (together, Wildride marks). Wildbird moved for a preliminary injunction against Wildride asserts that Wildride is infringing on its "WILDBIRD" trademarks and seeks to enjoin Wildride from using its "WILDRIDE" marks to conduct business in the United States pending trial.

Preliminary injunction. Under Second Circuit precedent, a district court may grant a preliminary injunction if the moving party establishes (a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief. To succeed on its trademark infringement claims, Wildbird must demonstrate that its mark “is entitled to protection” and that Wildride's use of its own mark “is likely to cause consumers confusion as to the origin or sponsorship” of Wildride's goods. Wildbird must demonstrate a probability of confusion, not a mere possibility, affecting numerous ordinary prudent purchasers. To evaluate this likelihood of consumer confusion, courts apply the eight factors established in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961). The district court considered each Polaroid factor in turn.

Strength of the mark. The district court noted that Wildbird’s marks are suggestive and if a mark is suggestive, the court must determine whether the mark is weak or strong because suggestive marks, by their nature, seek to suggest the qualities of the product and strong logical associations represent weakness. The district court found that the Wildbird marks do not directly describe or identify the baby carriers to which they are applied. The founders adopted the name “Wildbird” to evoke the nurturing and protective nature of a mother bird. In doing so, the Wildbird marks merely suggest that their baby carriers are nurturing and protective through the use of imagination, thought, and perception. The district court found that to the extent that any such logical association exists, it weakens the strength of Wildbird’s suggestive marks. The district court also rejected Wildbird’s arguments that the list of third-party trademarks formed with the word “WILD” is irrelevant because Wildride has not shown that those trademarks were actually used, much less used on baby or toddler carriers. Additionally, Wildbird failed to demonstrate that advertising expenditures, sales, or media coverage have achieved sufficient acquired strength for its marks to counterbalance their inherent weakness. Thus, Wildbird’s suggestive marks remained weak and this factor tipped in favor of the defendants.

Similarity of the marks. The district court noted that, although both marks begin with the term “WILD” in all capital letters, their similarities start and end there. Further, a comparison of the two marks revealed that their differences are more salient than that single similarity. The parties use different words in the second half of their mark “BIRD” and “RIDE” and their logos incorporate different icons: the Wildbird logo includes the silhouette of a small bird perched on top of the final letter of its name, whereas the Wildride logo features a large, detailed cheetah head before the first letter of its name. Additionally, Wildbird’s baby carrier appears rectangular in its product photos and its packaging prominently features its logo, a larger version of the bird silhouette, and the phrases “KEEP YOUR LITTLE BIRD CLOSE” and “welcome to the flock!,” emphasizing the “bird” portion of its marks. By contrast, Wildride’s toddler carrier appears like a triangle with curved sides in its product photos and its packaging displays its cheetah logo and uses the phrase “ENJOY THE RIDE!” emphasizing the “ride” portion of its marks. Thus, the second Polaroid factor also weighed against finding a likelihood of consumer confusion.

Proximity of the products. The district court found that Wildbird’s carriers are marketed for babies and Wildride’s carriers are marketed for toddlers between ages 9 months to 4 years, so the products are closely related. In fact, the same consumers could purchase both carriers to perform the same function of allowing them to carry their young children, hands-free at different stages of their child’s life. The district court noted that a customer who had previously purchased a Wildbird baby carrier could, mere weeks later, be in the market for a Wildride toddler carrier. The differences in the products’ construction or submarkets do not negate the conclusion that they are otherwise in significant competitive proximity to each other. Thus, the third Polaroid factor weighed in favor of Wildbird.

Actual confusion. The district court noted that Wildbird failed to provide any consumer surveys indicating confusion, which weighed against a finding of consumer confusion. Nor did Wildbird provide admissible evidence of a single customer who expressed confusion. Instead, Wildbird cited brief, in-person conversations with unidentified suppliers and Nordstrom retailer employees at business-to-business events. Therefore, the actual confusion factor weighed against finding a likelihood of consumer confusion and in favor of Wildride.

Remaining factors. The district court noted that four Polaroid factors remained: the likelihood that the plaintiff will bridge the gap, any bad faith by the defendant in adopting its mark, the quality of defendant's product, and the sophistication of the buyers. Wildbird conceded that the first of the remaining factors, the likelihood that the plaintiff will bridge the gap, does not apply because the products are sufficiently similar that there is no gap to bridge. Further, Wildbird did not present any evidence that Wildride adopted its mark in bad faith. Additionally, the record did not support a finding that either Wildbird or Wildride’s products are superior in quality to the other. Lastly, the consumer sophistication factor militates against finding a likelihood of consumer confusion as both Wildbird and Wildride have described their products as premium, given that they are priced in the hundreds of dollars.

Balancing the factors. Some of the Polaroid factors (strength of mark, similarity, actual confusion, bad faith, and consumer sophistication) weighed against a finding of likelihood of consumer confusion, one factor (competitive proximity) favored finding a likelihood of consumer confusion, and two factors were neutral (bridging the gap and quality). On balance, however, Wildbird failed to show that consumers were likely to be confused as to the source of these two products, the district court ruled.

Remaining preliminary injunction factors. The district court determined that Wildbird’s arguments regarding the remaining preliminary injunction factors: irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest also failed because Wildbird’s arguments in connection with each of these factors are contingent on a finding of consumer confusion. However, as Wildbird did not establish a likelihood of consumer confusion, its arguments as to the remaining preliminary injunction factors failed.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-05993-DLC.

Judge: Cote, D.

Attorneys: Jonathan Webster Thomas (Greenberg Traurig LLP) for Wildbird LLC. Leo Martin Lichtman (ESCA Legal LLC) for Wildride B.V and Wildride USA Corp.

Companies: Wildbird LLC; Wildride B.V.; Wildride USA Corp.

Cases: Trademark NewYorkNews GCNNews