直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Fox Argues that “Empire” Is Protected Under The First Amendment in Trademark Dispute

January 04, 2016

Authored and Edited by Jonathan D. Uffelman; Naresh Kilaru; Julia Anne Matheson

On December 15, 2015, Twentieth Century Fox moved for summary judgment in its trademark dispute with Empire Distribution, Inc. (“Empire”), arguing that Fox’s use of the term “Empire” for the title of its television show and accompanying musical soundtracks are protected by the First Amendment.

According to Fox, Empire is a musical dramatic television series about a feuding entertainment-industry family and the company, “Empire Enterprises,” owned by its patriarch. As a musical drama, original songs are written and produced specifically for the series. Columbia Records, with permission from Fox, releases and distributes songs following the broadcast of each new episode and releases soundtrack albums.

Empire is a music distribution company and record label that has released albums and singles in partnership with hip hop artists such as Snoop Dogg, Sage the Gemini, and others. Empire uses the following logo to identify its music distribution company:

Empire

In February 2015, Empire sent Fox a demand letter alleging trademark infringement based on Fox’s use of “Empire” for its television show, including Fox’s use of the logo shown below:

Empire2

Fox sued for declaratory judgment in March 2015, and Empire filed counterclaims in June, calling Fox’s suit a “preemptive ploy to deprive Empire of its natural position as plaintiff.”

Fox’s summary judgment motion asserts that the First Amendment bars Empire’s infringement claims.  Citing Rogers v. Grimaldi, Fox argues that the Lanham Act does not apply to titles of artistic works unless the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work. Fox claims its use of “Empire” for the title of its show and soundtracks meets this standard.

According to Fox, the first prong of Rogers requires only that the title have “minimal” artistic relevance to the underlying work, i.e., “above zero.” Fox asserts that the title “is an on-the-nose reminder of the show’s central themes and inspirations: New York, the ‘Empire State’ setting for the show; ‘Empire Enterprises,’ the powerhouse entertainment company over which the show’s characters struggle for control; and the figurative ‘empire’ that control over this [entertainment] conglomerate represents.”

Regarding the second prong, Fox argues that Empire and the soundtracks do not say anything about Empire, let alone overtly claim its involvement in the works. Nor did Empire plead that Fox’s use of “Empire” explicitly misleads consumers as to the source of its television show and soundtracks.  According to Fox, “[t]his begins and ends the analysis.”

Fox’s motion is scheduled for a hearing on February 1, 2016.  The case is Twentieth Century Fox Television v. Empire Distribution, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02158-PA(FFMx).

Tags

First Amendment, Lanham Act, likelihood of confusion, Twentieth Century Fox

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Contacts

Jonathan D. Uffelman
Domain Name Specialist / Attorney
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4328
Email
Naresh Kilaru
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4236
Email

Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP