IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D.N.Y.: Summary judgment granted to Tod's in trademark dispute over double-t logo, (May 13, 2026)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

No likelihood of confusion between Italian luxury brand's mark and smaller competitor's similar design on handbags.

The federal district court in New York City granted summary judgment to Italian luxury fashion company Tod's S.p.A. and its U.S. distributor Deva, Inc. in a trademark infringement case brought by Tribe of Two, LLC, a small handbag company. The court ruled that no reasonable juror could find a likelihood of confusion between the parties' respective double-T logos, despite some visual similarities (Tribe of Two, LLC v. Tod’s S.p.A., No. 1:23-cv-03255-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2026)).

Background. Tribe of Two was founded in 2012 by Brenda Schad, a former runway and print model, and her friend Jeannine Maggi. Schad chose the name to reference her Native American heritage and the friendship between the two founders. The company developed a logo featuring two interlocking letter T's, with one inverted to form a Roman numeral II.

In May 2012, Schad retained a graphic designer to implement her design ideas. She filed a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on May 20, 2012, seeking to register the mark for purses and wallets. The USPTO issued Registration No. 4377523 on July 30, 2013, which became incontestable on August 17, 2018. In 2019, Tribe of Two obtained a second registration for the double-T design without the "Tribe of Two" wording above it.

Tribe of Two has used its mark in connection with luxury handbags made from python, leather, vegan leather, and other exotic skins, priced between under $1,000 to over $3,000. The company's total revenues from 2012 through 2022 were approximately $200,000 from the sale of approximately 200 bags. Advertising expenditures during this period were minimal. The company sold products primarily through house parties, invitation-only trunk shows, private events, consignment sales at stores, its website, and trade shows.

Tod's is an Italian fashion company best known for its driving shoes. In 2015, Tod's engaged an independent contractor to design its double-T design, which debuted in September 2015. The design featured two T's arranged horizontally with rounded, cylindrical edges, creating a different visual impression than Tribe of Two's vertical arrangement.

On November 13, 2015, Tod's filed three trademark applications with the USPTO seeking to register variations of its double-T design. Tod's did not conduct a trademark clearance search before filing. The USPTO approved the applications. Between 2016 and 2022, Tod's sales of products bearing the double-T mark totaled at least $34 million.

Schad first became aware of Tod's double-T products in July 2018. After sending a demand letter in September 2018, Tribe of Two filed a notice of opposition before the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in December 2018. The company filed this lawsuit on April 19, 2023, alleging willful infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.

The court's analysis. The court analyzed the case under the framework established in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., which provides eight non-exhaustive factors for evaluating trademark infringement: strength of the mark, degree of similarity between marks, proximity of products, likelihood of bridging the gap, actual confusion, defendant's good faith, quality of products, and sophistication of buyers.

Strength of the mark. The court found this factor favored Tod’s. While acknowledging that Tribe of Two's mark was inherently distinctive as an incontestable trademark and arbitrary or fanciful in relation to handbags, the court found its marketplace strength "decidedly weak."

The court emphasized that extensive third-party usage of similar marks weighs against finding a trademark strong. Several fashion-related businesses used similar double-T marks, including Tory Burch, Turq N Taupe, Valttino, TT Goering, and The Togethership. The court noted that even though these third-party businesses did not all produce luxury women's handbags, usage in the broader fashion industry demonstrated the weakness of Tribe of Two’s mark.

In evaluating marketplace strength, the court examined sales success, advertising expenditures, consumer studies, unsolicited media coverage, attempts to plagiarize the mark, and length of exclusive use. Tribe of Two's minimal sales and advertising expenditures provided no evidence of acquired strength. The company produced no consumer study linking its mark to its source, identified no unsolicited media coverage, and alleged no attempts to plagiarize the mark. The court also found that Tribe of Two's exclusive use period of at most three years was insufficient to demonstrate secondary meaning.

Similarity of the marks. The court found this factor only slightly favored Tribe of Two. While both marks involved two connected T's, the court identified several key differences. Tribe of Two's vertical orientation created the impression of a Roman numeral II, which was purposefully designed to represent the company name and its two owners. Tod's horizontal mark did not create this impression and featured a noticeable gap between the interlocking T's. The styling also differed, with Tribe of Two using straight block lettering while Tod's used rounded, cylindrical edges.

The court further noted that the parties' word trademarks often appeared on their products. Tod's double-T mark included the word "TOD'S" on two of its three registered versions, while many of Tribe of Two's bags bore metal tags with the mark below the words "TRIBE OF TWO." The court stated that prominently displayed trade names "can go far towards eliminating any possible confusion."

Proximity of products. This factor decisively favored Tod’s. The court found only partial overlap in product types, noting that Tribe of Two never used its mark on glasses, sunglasses, cufflinks, shoes, or belts, while the bulk of Tod's double-T product sales were shoes.

More importantly, the parties' products were not in competitive proximity. Tod's sold approximately 75% of its U.S. products through its own boutiques and outlets, with the remainder through department stores and e-commerce. Tribe of Two's top sales channels were significantly different. The court found no stores that sold both parties' products except third-party resale platforms Poshmark and The RealReal.

The court reasoned that the distinct channels of commerce reduced confusion because shopping at branded boutiques or branded house parties implies consumers know what brand they are buying. The court distinguished this case from situations where consumers visiting stores selling one product would likely visit nearby stores selling the other. The court also found that the presence of both products on third-party resale platforms was insufficient to establish competitive proximity, as these were not the parties' own distribution channels.

Other factors. The court found the bridging-the-gap factor inapplicable since both parties were already in the same industry. Evidence of actual confusion was minimal. Tribe of Two presented only anecdotal evidence from several of Schad's friends, and no consumer survey. Most importantly, the friends who allegedly experienced confusion actually recognized the distinction between the two products and were not truly confused about origin.

The court found no evidence of bad faith, rejecting Tribe of Two's argument that bad faith could be inferred from Tod's failure to conduct a trademark search. The court noted that the Second Circuit has never held that adopting a mark without knowledge of a prior similar mark constitutes bad faith, even absent a trademark search.

The quality of products factor was neutral, as the parties submitted little evidence comparing product quality. The sophistication of customers factor favored the defendants, as Tribe of Two's luxury handbags ranging in price from $1,000 to $3,000 indicated sophisticated consumers who would be less likely to be confused.

Holding. Weighing all the Polaroid factors, the court concluded that the strength of mark, proximity of products, actual confusion, bad faith, and sophistication of customer factors clearly favored the defendants. Even viewing the similarity of marks factor as moderately or weakly favoring Tribe of Two, the court found this insufficient to overcome the minimal likelihood of confusion.

The court emphasized that the balancing is not merely mechanical but must consider the totality of evidence. The weakness of Tribe of Two's acquired strength, lack of commercial channel overlap, and absence of actual confusion weighed insurmountably in favor of finding that consumers were unlikely to be confused. The court granted summary judgment to Tod's and denied Tribe of Two's motion for summary judgment, also denying the parties' expert testimony motions as moot and granting their motions to seal.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-03255-JGLC.

Judge: Clarke, J.

Attorneys: Gayle Roxanne Elings (Davis Wright Tremaine LLP) for Tribe of Two, LLC. Richard Stephen Mandel (Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.) for Tod's S.P.A.

Companies: Tribe of Two, LLC; Tod's S.P.A.

Cases: Trademark NewYorkNews