The Coachella Music Festival is known for its laidback and fun vibe, but that doesn’t mean its organizers don’t take the protection of its brand seriously. The people behind one of the music industry’s biggest annual events have filed a trademark infringement suit against Hoodchella, a new indie music festival that arrived on the scene last year in April, the same month that Coachella is held. This year, Hoodchella will be bigger and take place a week before Coachella. According to Rolling Stone, Coachella’s organizers contacted Hoodchella’s organizers repeatedly about a name change, prior to filing the lawsuit, but apparently they were ignored. It’s probably obvious why Coachella is taking legal steps to stop the festival from taking place unless it changes its name. It has built up a lot of goodwill under the name and has established a certain reputation among music lovers.
A successful infringement claim involves proving a likelihood of confusion for consumers, and a court will use a number of factors for assessment. But we’ll only discuss some general aspects of the matter. Given the similar names, similar nature of the events, and scheduled dates for both, there’s a fairly good argument for a likelihood of confusion. Is a consumer who comes across Hoodchella online likely to make a connection with Coachella? Probably. Coachella has a strong trademark and it’s globally known. It’s possible to come across Hoodchella, make the association with Coachella, and buy tickets under the assumption that it’s a new addition to the bigger festival. If the event is disorganized or doesn’t meet attendee expectation, it could damage Coachella’s brand.
Where creative minds come together
Hoodchella has launched a Change.org petition in response to the suit (hopefully, this isn’t the only way its organizers plan to respond), expressly stating that they aren’t associated with Coachella. While a petition for fan support won’t help them legally, there are some defenses at the disposal of someone facing trademark infringement and dilution claims, including fair use and parody. Under classic fair use, the second user treats the trademark as a descriptor for its own goods or services. For example, a candy store called Sweet Spot wouldn’t be successful in claiming that a record store saying that it was the sweet spot to get the best vintage albums was infringing. Nominative use is a purposeful reference to the trademark to discuss it. This is a no brainer. We can’t have trademark owners impeding our ability to talk about them. Coachella isn’t mentioned at all by Hoodchella, so neither of these likely applies. Finally, Hoodchella might look like a parody at first glance, but it may not hold up to a court’s test. It doesn’t appear that Hoodchella is a commentary or criticism of Coachella. A look at its website only describes it as a “music festival, over 16 hrs, live music, food, drinks, culture and overall great time.” There’s no element that ties it to Coachella while also ridiculing or mocking it. April is only a few months away, so we’re keeping an eye on this one to see how it plays out.
