IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—W.D. Wash.: Infringement claims around ‘GIRLDAD’ ‘BOYDAD’ marks can proceed against merchandiser, (Nov 13, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

Photos showed there could be a “probability of confusion,” according to the court.

A merchandiser was denied a motion to dismiss claims by the owner of federal trademark registrations for the phrases “GIRLDAD” and “BOYDAD,” since pictures suggested customer confusion, and aesthetic functionality, a fact-intensive inquiry, was better suited for summary judgment, the federal district court in Tacoma, Washington, has found. The company, Hildawn Design (Hildawn), asserted that the merchandiser, Dad Gang, used its marks in product titles, as search terms, and in HTML metatags to market its own hats, allegedly diverting consumers and causing confusion. Hildawn alleged trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114, unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition (Hildawn Design v. Dad Gang Co., No. 3:25-cv-05277-DGE (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 2025)).

The court noted that to prove a claim for trademark infringement or unfair competition, a party must establish: (1) ownership of the trademark at issue; (2) use by defendant, in commerce, without authorization, of the plaintiff’s mark; and (3) that defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause confusion. Since the first two requirements were established, the court stated that “the question for resolving this renewed motion to dismiss is whether Defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers.” The court found that holders of the GIRLDAD and BOYDAD registrations met their burden.

Dad Gang argued that the doctrine of aesthetic functionality barred infringement liability because the use of the phrases “Girl Dad” or “Boy Dad” on Hildawn’s clothing items is not source-identifying but is instead functionally aesthetic. Agreeing in part with Dad Gang, the court noted that “nowhere in the text of the amended complaint does Plaintiff identify why or how a consumer of Defendant’s products would be confused as to its source.” And, on initial review, the potential for confusion was highly questionable.

However, the court found one notable exception. Hildawn’s pink baseball cap with the black lid showed a stylized, cursive-like font on the inside tag, with the word “Girl” stacked on top and offset to the left and the word “Dad” on the bottom and offset right. That same stylized font was shown on postcards laying on top of several of the examples of t-shirts in the amended complaint. “Both in style and design, this particular use of the phrase ‘Girl Dad’ appears almost identical to the stylized phrase ‘Dad Gang’ on one of Defendant’s hats as shown in a Facebook post in the complaint.” The two photos plausibly showed that there could be a “probability of confusion,” according to the court. Since that aesthetic functionality is a fact-intensive inquiry better suited for a motion for summary judgment or a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court denied the motion to dismiss.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-05277-DGE.

Judge: Estudillo, D.

Attorneys: Philip P. Mann (Mann Law Group PLLC) for Hildawn Design LLC. Mark Rosencrantz (Carney Badley Spellman PS) for Dad Gang Co LLC.

Companies: Hildawn Design LLC; Dad Gang Co LLC

Cases: Trademark WashingtonNews