Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-21-55881/USCOURTS-ca9-21-55881-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PUNCHBOWL, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

No. 21-55881

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 

2:21-cv-03010-

SVW-MAR

v. OPINION

AJ PRESS, LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company, 

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 17, 2022

Pasadena, California

Before: John B. Owens and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit 

Judges, and Sidney A. Fitzwater,* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Bress

__________________

* The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for 

the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

FILED

NOV 14 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 1 of 24
SUMMARY**

Lanham Act

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary 

judgment in favor of AJ Press, LLC, in an action brought by 

Punchbowl, Inc. (Punchbowl), alleging violations of the 

Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair 

competition and related state law claims.

Punchbowl is an online party and event planning 

service. AJ Press owns and operates Punchbowl News, a 

subscription-based online news publication that provides 

articles, podcasts, and videos about American politics, from 

a Washington, D.C. insider’s perspective. Punchbowl 

claimed that Punchbowl News is misusing its “Punchbowl” 

trademark (the Mark).

Traditionally, courts apply a likelihood-of-confusion test 

to claims brought under the Lanham Act. When artistic 

expression is at issue, however, the traditional test fails to 

account for the full weight of the public’s interest in free 

expression. If the product involved is an expressive work, 

the court applies a gateway test, grounded in background 

First Amendment concerns, to determine whether the 

Lanham Act applies. Under the approach set forth in Rogers 

v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), adopted by this 

court in Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th 

Cir. 2002), the defendant must first make a threshold legal 

showing that its allegedly infringing use is part of an 

expressive work protected by the First Amendment. If the 

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has 

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 2 of 24
defendant meets this burden, the Lanham Act does not apply 

unless the defendant’s use of the mark (1) is not artistically 

relevant to the work or (2) explicitly misleads consumers as 

to the source or content of the work.

Punchbowl asserted that the Rogers test is entirely 

inapplicable because it does not extend to “the brand name 

of [a] commercial enterprise.” The panel disagreed, holding 

that AJ Press’s use of the Mark in Punchbowl News is 

sufficiently expressive to merit First Amendment protection 

and application of the Rogers test. Applying that test, the 

panel noted that the first prong sets a very low threshold: the 

level of artistic relevance merely must be above zero. As to 

the second prong, the panel concluded that because AJ Press 

uses the Mark in an entirely different market and as only one 

component of the larger expressive work, Punchbowl News

is not explicitly misleading as to its source. The panel wrote 

that no reasonable buyer would believe that a company that 

operates a D.C. insider news publication is related to a 

“technology company” with a “focus on celebrations, 

holidays, events, and memory-making.” The panel wrote 

that this resolves not only the Lanham Act claims, but the 

state law claims as well. The panel explained that survey 

evidence of consumer confusion is not relevant to the 

question of whether AJ Press’s use of the Mark is explicitly 

misleading, which is a legal test for assessing whether the 

Lanham Act applies.

The panel held that the district court’s denial of 

Punchbowl’s request for a continuance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(d) to permit further discovery was not an abuse of 

discretion.

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 3 of 24
COUNSEL

Peter J. Willsey (argued) and Vincent Badolato, Brown 

Rudnick LLP, Washington, D.C.; Rebecca MacDowell 

Lecaroz and Melanie Dahl Burke, Brown Rudnick LLP, 

Boston, Massachusetts; David Stein, Brown Rudnick LLP, 

Irvine, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ian C. Ballon (argued), Rebekah S. Guyon (argued), and 

Nina D. Boyajian, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Los Angeles, 

California, for Defendant-Appellee.

Cara L. Gagliano and Corynne McSherry, Electronic 

Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, California, for Amicus 

Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Eugene Volokh; Elizabeth Anastasi, Max Hyams, and Sofie 

Oldroyd, Certified Law Students; UCLA School of Law 

First Amendment Clinic, for Amici Curiae Professors Ann 

Bartow, Jim Gibson, James Grimmelmann, Mark Lemley, 

Phil Malone, Mark McKenna, Lisa Ramsey, Jeremy Sheff, 

Jessica Silbey, Christopher Sprigman, and Rebecca Tushnet.

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 4 of 24
PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC 1

OPINION

BRESS, Circuit Judge:

Punchbowl, Inc., is an online party and event planning 

service. Punchbowl News is a subscription-based online 

news publication that provides articles, podcasts, and videos 

about American politics, from a Washington, D.C. insider’s 

perspective. Punchbowl claims that Punchbowl News is 

misusing its “Punchbowl” trademark. Applying our

precedents, we hold that Punchbowl News’s use of the term 

“Punchbowl” is expressive in nature and not explicitly 

misleading as to its source. It thus falls outside the Lanham 

Act as a matter of law. 

I

Punchbowl, Inc. (Punchbowl), is a self-described 

“technology company that develops online communications 

solutions for consumers,” with a “focus on celebrations, 

holidays, events and memory-making.” Punchbowl 

provides “online event and celebration invitations and 

greetings cards” and “custom sponsorships and branded 

invitations,” as part of a subscription-based service. 

Punchbowl also works with companies such as The Walt 

Disney Company, Chuck E. Cheese, and Dave & Busters to 

help them promote their brands through online invitations.

Punchbowl has used the mark Punchbowl® (the Mark) 

since at least 2006. It registered the Mark with the United 

States Patent & Trademark Office in 2013. The Mark was 

registered primarily in connection with the “[t]ransmission 

of invitations, documents, electronic mail, announcements, 

photographs and greetings”; “[p]arty planning”; and 

“[p]reparation of electronic invitations, namely, 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 5 of 24
2 PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC

providing . . . software that enables users to . . . customize 

electronic invitations.” 

Punchbowl promotes itself as “The Gold Standard in 

Online Invitations & Greeting Cards,” as reflected in this 

record excerpt from Punchbowl’s website:

A larger example of Punchbowl’s Mark and logo (a 

punch ladle) is shown here:

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 6 of 24
PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC 3

But this is not the only Punchbowl. Journalists Jake 

Sherman and Anna Palmer are the co-founders of AJ Press, 

LLC, a company that “provides curated, non-partisan 

commentary, opinions, and critiques.” In 2021, Palmer and 

Sherman co-founded Punchbowl News with reporter John 

Bresnahan. Punchbowl News is a subscription-based online 

news publication that covers topics in American government 

and politics. AJ Press owns and operates Punchbowl News, 

choosing which topics to cover and how to address them. AJ 

Press concentrates its reporting on the “insiders” who make 

decisions in Washington, D.C., (i.e., politicians, aides, and 

lobbyists), and on events and news that affect American 

political dynamics and elections. 

Given the publication’s focus on Beltway politics, AJ 

Press wanted a name that evoked its subject matter. It chose

“Punchbowl” because that is the nickname the Secret 

Service uses to refer to the U.S. Capitol. The title 

Punchbowl News was thus selected to “elicit the theme and 

geographic location” of the publication. AJ Press has filed 

trademark applications to register the marks “Punchbowl 

News” and “Punchbowl Press.”

Punchbowl News often uses a slogan—“Power. People. 

Politics.”—in connection with its name and logo. Like its 

name, AJ Press chose its slogan to reflect the subject matter 

and theme of the Punchbowl News publication. Similarly, 

AJ Press selected a logo to allude to the publication’s focus 

on insider news and political commentary. The logo depicts 

an overturned U.S. Capitol filled with bright pink/purple 

punch—an apparently playful homage to a blend of the 

traditional red and blue associated with America’s leading 

political parties that emphasizes the publication’s 

nonpartisan stance. This is an example from the record of 

Punchbowl News’s logo in conjunction with its slogan, as it 

appears on its website:

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 7 of 24
4 PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC

Punchbowl News frequently promotes its connection to 

its founders. Its website depicts a large image of Sherman, 

Palmer, and Bresnahan accompanied by text stating that 

Punchbowl News was “founded by journalists and bestselling authors Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer, and cofounded by veteran Capitol Hill reporter John Bresnahan.” 

Punchbowl News’s publications state at the top, near the 

name “Punchbowl News,” that they are “by John Bresnahan, 

Anna Palmer, and Jake Sherman.”

The parties’ coinciding uses of “Punchbowl” led to this 

lawsuit. Punchbowl sued AJ Press alleging violations of the 

Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair 

competition. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a). Punchbowl also 

brought related state law claims.

The district court granted summary judgment to AJ 

Press, concluding that its use of the name “Punchbowl” did 

not give rise to liability because it constituted protected 

expression and was not explicitly misleading as to its source. 

The district court also denied Punchbowl’s request for a 

continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to 

conduct additional discovery. 

Punchbowl timely appeals. We review the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Miranda v. 

City of Casa Grande, 15 F.4th 1219, 1224 (9th Cir. 2021). 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 8 of 24
PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC 5

II

The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., “creates a 

comprehensive framework for regulating the use of 

trademarks and protecting them against infringement, 

dilution, and unfair competition.” Gordon v. Drape 

Creative, Inc., 909 F.3d 257, 263 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting 

Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand 

Mgmt., Inc., 618 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010)). 

Traditionally, courts apply a likelihood-of-confusion test to 

claims brought under the Lanham Act. See id. at 264.

When “artistic expression is at issue,” however, we have 

held that “the traditional test fails to account for the full 

weight of the public’s interest in free expression.” Id.

(quotations omitted). If we were to disregard “the expressive 

value that some marks assume, trademark rights would grow 

to encroach upon the zone protected by the First 

Amendment.” Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 

894, 900 (9th Cir. 2002). A trademark owner “‘does not 

have the right to control public discourse’ by enforcing his 

mark.” Gordon, 909 F.3d at 264 (quoting Mattel, 296 F.3d 

at 900). Thus, “if the product involved is an expressive 

work,” we apply a gateway test, grounded in background 

First Amendment concerns, to determine whether the 

Lanham Act applies. Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 

1235, 1239 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Gordon, 909 F.3d at 264 

(explaining that when expressive activity is at issue, we 

“employ[] the First Amendment as a rule of construction to 

avoid conflict between the Constitution and the Lanham 

Act”).

In Mattel, we adopted the approach set forth by the 

Second Circuit in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 

1989), to frame the inquiry into whether the Lanham Act 

applies. See Mattel, 296 F.3d at 902. Under the Rogers test, 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 9 of 24
6 PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC

the defendant must first “make a threshold legal showing 

that its allegedly infringing use is part of an expressive work 

protected by the First Amendment.” Gordon, 909 F.3d at 

264. If the defendant meets this burden, the Lanham Act 

does not apply unless “the defendant’s use of the mark (1) is 

not artistically relevant to the work or (2) explicitly misleads 

consumers as to the source or the content of the work.” Id.

(citing Mattel, 296 F.3d at 902). “Neither of these prongs is 

easy to meet.” Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. ComicMix LLC, 

983 F.3d 443, 462 (9th Cir. 2020). This approach is justified, 

we have held, because of the First Amendment interests at 

stake and because consumers are less likely to believe that 

someone using a mark in an expressive work is seeking to 

attribute its work to the trademark holder. See Twentieth 

Century Fox Television v. Empire Distrib. Inc., 875 F.3d 

1192, 1196 (9th Cir. 2017). 

A

Before we apply the Rogers test, however, we must 

address Punchbowl’s objection that this case lies outside of 

Rogers’s domain. Specifically, Punchbowl asserts that the 

Rogers test is entirely inapplicable because it does not 

extend to “the brand name of [a] commercial enterprise.” In 

Punchbowl’s view, that kind of branding is insufficiently 

expressive to merit Rogers’s heightened protections. We 

disagree. 

“[T]he only threshold requirement for the Rogers test is 

an attempt to apply the Lanham Act to First Amendment 

expression.” Twentieth Century Fox, 875 F.3d at 1198. To 

determine whether a work is expressive, we ask “whether the 

work ‘is communicating ideas or expressing points of 

view.’” VIP Prods. LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc., 953 

F.3d 1170, 1174–75 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Mattel, 296 

F.3d at 900). “A work need not be the expressive equal of 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 10 of 24
PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC 7

Anna Karenina or Citizen Kane to satisfy this requirement, 

and is not rendered non-expressive simply because it is sold 

commercially.” Id. at 1175 (citations and quotations 

omitted).

Our case law demonstrates that a wide range of activity 

qualifies as expressive under Rogers (and thus the First 

Amendment). For example, in VIP Products, we concluded 

that a rubber dog toy resembling a bottle of Jack Daniel’s 

whiskey was expressive because it conveyed a humorous 

message. 953 F.3d at 1175. In Gordon, we similarly 

concluded, with “little difficulty,” that greeting cards 

containing the trademarked lines “Honey Badger Don’t 

Care” and “Honey Badger Don’t Give a S - - -” were 

expressive in nature because they juxtaposed “an event of 

some significance,” like a birthday, with the “assertion of 

apathy” commonly associated with the trademarked phrase. 

909 F.3d at 268–69. The expressive aims at issue in these 

cases were not necessarily lofty, but they were expressive, 

nonetheless.

Titles, too, can be expressive in nature. Indeed, Rogers 

itself concerned the title of a movie. See Rogers, 875 F.2d 

at 1000. There, the Second Circuit explained that its test 

“insulates from restriction titles with at least minimal artistic 

relevance that are ambiguous or only implicitly misleading.” 

Id. We have applied Rogers to the title of a song (“Barbie 

Girl”), see Mattel, 296 F.3d at 902, and the title of 

photographic works, see Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain 

Prods., 353 F.3d 792, 807 (9th Cir. 2003). In Twentieth 

Century Fox, we held that Fox’s use of the mark “Empire” 

as a title for a television show was expressive because “the 

show’s setting is New York, the Empire State, and its subject 

matter is a music and entertainment conglomerate, ‘Empire 

Enterprises,’ which is itself a figurative empire.” 875 F.3d 

at 1198. In all these cases, the use of the mark was not 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 11 of 24
8 PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC

merely an “arbitrary” source-identifier. Id. at 1198. In fact, 

so initially focused was the Rogers doctrine on titles that it 

was only later that we “extended [Rogers] from titles to 

allegedly infringing uses within the body of an expressive 

work.” Id. at 1196 (citing E.S.S. Ent. 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star 

Videos, Inc., 547 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 2008)). 

In this case, we hold that AJ Press’s use of the 

Punchbowl Mark is sufficiently expressive to merit First 

Amendment protection, and thus application of the Rogers

test. Though AJ Press is a commercial enterprise, it is selling 

core First Amendment-protected information. The content 

of its publication, and its use of “Punchbowl” in the name of 

its brand and publications, is expressive. AJ Press 

specifically chose the name “Punchbowl” to convey the D.C. 

insider perspective of its news material. The word 

“Punchbowl” connotes a gossipy setting (e.g., standing 

around the punchbowl), and, in the context of Washington, 

D.C. political reporting, talebearer “buzz” about political 

happenings. The name “Punchbowl” also reflects a more 

spirited, “punchy” tone consistent with the nature of the fastmoving and tumultuous political topics on which AJ Press is 

reporting. If a rubber dog toy is expressive under Rogers, 

see VIP Prods., 953 F.3d at 1175, we have little doubt that 

AJ Press’s use of the Punchbowl Mark is as well. 

We easily reject Punchbowl’s argument that AJ Press’s 

“various publications include ‘opinions’ and ‘journalism’ 

that . . . are a far cry from the types of artistic and creative 

works that often merit heightened protection.” Any attempt 

to divide up the world between fact and fiction, news and art, 

fails under the First Amendment concerns that animate 

Rogers and its progeny. “The Free Speech Clause exists 

principally to protect discourse on public matters.” Brown 

v. Ent. Merchs. Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 790 (2011); cf. Zacchini 

v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 433 U.S. 562, 578 (1977) 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 12 of 24
PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC 9

(“There is no doubt that entertainment, as well as news, 

enjoys First Amendment protection.”). News publications 

“communicat[e] ideas” and “express[] points of view” on 

matters of public concern. VIP Prods., 953 F.3d at 1174 

(quoting Mattel, 296 F.3d at 900). Punchbowl News is 

plainly an expressive work, and its use of “Punchbowl” is 

likewise expressive in nature. Punchbowl’s suggestion that, 

under Rogers, news and opinion should be treated differently 

from “creative” works, finds no support in our cases.

We also reject Punchbowl’s argument that AJ Press’s use 

of “Punchbowl” falls outside Rogers because the Mark “is 

not typically used in the content of [AJ Press’s] news 

publications” but rather as part of a “commercial brand.” In 

Twentieth Century Fox, we expressly held that whether “a 

mark ha[s] attained a meaning beyond its source-identifying 

function” is not a threshold requirement for applying Rogers. 

875 F.3d at 1197. Rather, this “is merely a consideration 

under the first prong of the Rogers test.” Id. 

Regardless, in this case, attempting to distinguish 

between a brand and the body and titles of individual articles 

fails to appreciate the expressive connection between the 

publication’s title and brand and the reporting that appears 

under that heading. The title of the publication here 

amplifies the content of the communications and gives 

context to them. Punchbowl concedes that the use of the 

word “Punchbowl” in an article or the title of an individual 

article would be expressive. That AJ Press used 

“Punchbowl” as the title of a proverbial series does not make 

it any less expressive.

The logic of Rogers is equally applicable to the titles or 

brands of news publications as it is to the titles or content of 

individual articles. Our decision in Twentieth Century Fox

is critical in this respect. There, the record company Empire 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 13 of 24
10 PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC

Distribution challenged Fox’s use of its “Empire” mark as 

the title of a TV series about a fictional music label named 

“Empire Enterprises.” 875 F.3d at 1195. Empire 

Distribution argued that Rogers was not implicated because 

“Fox’s use of the mark ‘Empire’ extend[ed] well beyond the 

titles and bodies of the[] expressive works.” Id. at 1196. 

Specifically, Fox used the Empire mark as an “umbrella 

brand to promote and sell music and other commercial 

products,” including in connection with “online advertising” 

and “the sale or licensing of consumer goods.” Id. 

We held that use of the “Empire” mark as an umbrella 

brand did not take the case outside of Rogers. Id. at 1196–

97. We noted that Rogers itself “concerned both a movie 

with an allegedly infringing title and its advertising and 

promotion.” Id. at 1197. Although Fox’s “promotional 

efforts technically f[e]ll outside the title or body of an 

expressive work,” Rogers still applied. Id. at 1996–97. In 

so holding, we reasoned that the First Amendment interests 

underlying Rogers “could be destabilized if the titles of 

expressive works were protected but could not be used to 

promote those works.” Id. at 1997.

The logic of Twentieth Century Fox governs here. 

Punchbowl News is within Rogers’s bounds even though it 

consists of underlying expressive works and serves as an 

“umbrella brand” for them. Id. at 1196. Indeed, here, unlike 

in Twentieth Century Fox, the Punchbowl Mark is being 

used to promote articles and other materials that are clearly 

expressive in nature and core First Amendment material, 

which arguably makes the Rogers test even more relevant. 

Just because a mark is used as a brand for a media 

publication does not mean the use of the name is beyond 

Rogers’s coverage. 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 14 of 24
PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC 11

Punchbowl also maintains that there are other ways AJ 

Press could have expressed itself without using 

“Punchbowl” in the name of its publication or branding. But 

that argument, which poses major First Amendment 

problems, does not make AJ Press’s use of “Punchbowl” 

non-expressive. See Rogers, 875 F.2d. at 998 (rejecting the 

argument that “First Amendment concerns are implicated 

only where a title is so intimately related to the subject matter 

of a work that the author has no alternative means of 

expressing what the work is about”). 

Punchbowl’s attempt to evade Rogers is also undercut by 

the fact that AJ Press does not use the Punchbowl Mark as a 

bare source-identifier. As will be discussed in more detail 

below, AJ Press uses the name “Punchbowl,” often in 

conjunction with its slogan and logo, to broadcast a unifying 

theme that reflects its focus on insider politics in 

Washington. And it typically uses “Punchbowl” in the title 

“Punchbowl News,” or through an otherwise obvious 

connection to its news reporting. The name Punchbowl 

News itself (in addition to the underlying publications) 

undoubtedly communicates a perspective on the subjects it 

covers. See VIP Prods., 953 F.3d at 1174. 

In short, Punchbowl has not provided legal support for 

its assertion that the name of a brand or publication of a news 

enterprise can never be expressive, or that it is not expressive 

here. Accordingly, we evaluate the use of the Mark in 

Punchbowl News under the Rogers framework.

B

As we have explained, Rogers “requires the plaintiff to 

show that the defendant’s use of the mark is either (1) not 

artistically relevant to the underlying work or (2) explicitly 

misleads consumers as to the source or content of the work.” 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 15 of 24
12 PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC

VIP Prods., 953 F.3d at 1174 (quotations omitted). The first 

part of this test sets a very low threshold: “the level of 

[artistic] relevance merely must be above zero.” E.S.S. Ent., 

547 F.3d at 1100. Punchbowl therefore understandably 

focuses its argument on Rogers’s second prong. That prong 

of Rogers “points directly at the purpose of trademark law, 

namely to ‘avoid confusion in the marketplace by allowing 

a trademark owner to prevent others from duping consumers 

into buying a product they mistakenly believe is sponsored 

by the trademark owner.’” Id. (quoting Walking Mt. Prods., 

353 F.3d at 806).

Accordingly, under our cases the “relevant question . . .

is whether [Punchbowl News] would confuse its [customers] 

into thinking that [Punchbowl] is somehow behind 

[Punchbowl News] or that it sponsors [AJ Press’s] 

product[s].” Id. But it is not enough that AJ Press uses 

“Punchbowl” in the name of its publication. We have been 

careful to note that “the mere use of a trademark alone cannot 

suffice to make such use explicitly misleading.” Id. (citing 

Mattel, 296 F.3d at 902). Otherwise, “the First Amendment 

would provide no defense at all,” “render[ing] Rogers a 

nullity.” Id. at 1099 (quotations omitted). Instead, the 

“explicitly misleading” component of Rogers sets “a high 

bar that requires the use to be ‘an explicit indication, overt 

claim, or explicit misstatement’ about the source of the 

work.” Dr. Seuss, 983 F.3d at 462 (quoting Brown, 724 F.3d 

at 1245). 

Because the use of a trademark alone is not dispositive, 

we weigh two primary considerations in evaluating whether 

the junior use is explicitly misleading: “(1) ‘the degree to 

which the junior user uses the mark in the same way as the 

senior user’ and (2) ‘the extent to which the junior user has 

added his or her own expressive content to the work beyond 

the mark itself.’” Id. (quoting Gordon, 909 F.3d at 270–71). 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 16 of 24
PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC 13

However, “[t]his is not a mechanical test,” and “all of the 

relevant facts and circumstances must be considered.” 

Gordon, 909 F.3d at 269 (quotations omitted).

We first consider the degree to which AJ Press uses the 

Mark in the same way as Punchbowl. Id. at 270. Here we 

ask whether “the junior user has employed the mark in a 

different context—[such as] in an entirely different 

market—than the senior user.” Id. For example, we have 

approved the use of Mattel’s Barbie mark in a pop song, see 

Mattel, 296 F.3d at 902; the mark of a strip club in a video 

game, E.S.S. Ent., 547 F.3d at 1100; and the mark of a record 

label in a television series. Twentieth Century Fox, 875 F.3d 

at 1196. In those circumstances, the “disparate use of the 

mark was at most ‘only suggestive’ of the product’s source 

and therefore did not outweigh the junior user’s First 

Amendment interests.” Gordon, 909 F.3d at 270 (quoting 

Rogers, 875 F.3d at 1000). 

Punchbowl argues that AJ Press employs the Mark in the 

same way Punchbowl does because both parties use the 

Mark “as a brand” for “online communications services” 

provided to “consumers of online services.” But “besides 

this general similarity, they have nothing in common.” 

E.S.S. Ent., 547 F.3d at 1100. The population consisting of 

“consumers of online communication services” describes 

virtually all consumers. If we were to apply Rogers’s second 

prong at that high level of generality, as Punchbowl 

advocates, we would dilute Rogers entirely. Nor do our 

precedents indicate that is the right approach. Instead, in 

past cases we have looked far more granularly at the 

similarity of use. Gordon provides a good example. There, 

we explained that both users employed the mark in the same 

way because both used it “to identify the source of humorous 

greeting cards in which the bottom line is ‘Honey Badger 

don’t care.’” 909 F.3d at 271.

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 17 of 24
14 PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC

Here, the parties’ uses of the name “Punchbowl” are 

quite different. Punchbowl is a self-described “technology 

company” with a “focus on celebrations, holidays, events 

and memory-making.” In contrast, Punchbowl News is a 

publication that provides newsletters, podcasts, and videos 

in the fields of government and politics, with content geared 

toward Washington insiders. This is not a case where AJ 

Press is parodying Punchbowl (and even in the case of 

parodies, we have held that Rogers forecloses liability, see 

e.g., Mattel, 296 F.3d at 901). Instead, the parties have used 

a “common English word,” Twentieth Century Fox, 875 F.3d 

at 1198, to describe two different enterprises that do very 

different things.

AJ Press also does not just use the word “Punchbowl,” 

but Punchbowl News, and it repeatedly connects its use of 

“Punchbowl” to its founders. We reject Punchbowl’s 

assertion that AJ Press’s use of the mark with the word 

“News” “does nothing to distinguish” Punchbowl News

from Punchbowl’s use of the mark. The companies’ 

ventures operate in different spaces, and Punchbowl News is 

“at most ‘only suggestive’” of Punchbowl the greeting card 

company. Gordon, 909 F.3d at 270 (quotations omitted). 

Indeed, it is questionable whether Punchbowl News is 

even suggestive of Punchbowl’s online greeting card 

business at all. Even if a simple web browser search might 

initially lead a consumer to the wrong company, there is no 

indication that AJ Press has sought to tie Punchbowl News 

to Punchbowl’s event planning products. AJ Press has thus 

not “dup[ed] consumers into buying a product they 

mistakenly believe is sponsored by the trademark owner.” 

E.S.S. Ent., 547 F.3d at 1100 (quotations omitted). 

In addition to the degree to which the junior and senior 

users employ a mark in the same way, under Rogers’s 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 18 of 24
PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC 15

second prong we look to “the extent to which the junior user 

has added his or her own expressive content to the work 

beyond the mark itself.” Gordon, 909 F.3d at 270. 

Punchbowl contends that AJ Press’s use of (1) descriptive 

terms such as “press” or “news,” (2) a slogan (“Power. 

People. Politics.”), and (3) the founders’ names in 

association with the Mark, “do not communicate ideas or 

express points of view; nor do they add any distinctive 

character to [AJ Press’s] use of the mark.” We do not find 

this persuasive. These features, both individually and 

collectively, plainly augment the expressive nature of the use 

of the word “Punchbowl.” Indeed, as we explained above, 

AJ Press selected Punchbowl News’s name, slogan, and logo 

to reflect the subject matter and theme of the publication. 

See id. at 269 (explaining that the inquiry focuses “on the 

nature of the junior user’s behavior rather than on the impact 

of the use” (quotations and alterations omitted)).

Moreover, and as we have explained, the concern that 

consumers will “be ‘misled as to the source of [a] product’ 

is generally allayed when the mark is used as only one 

component of a junior user’s larger expressive creation.” 

Gordon, 909 F.3d at 270–71 (quoting Rogers, 875 F.2d at 

998–99). Here, this is doubly true. The Punchbowl Mark is 

only a part of Punchbowl News’s overall branding, which, as 

noted, includes a slogan and a logo. In addition, Punchbowl 

News’s “larger expressive creation” consists of its series of 

newsletters, podcasts, and videos. Id. at 271. In that context, 

the Mark “obviously serve[s] as only ‘one element of the 

work and the junior user’s artistic expressions.’” Id. 

(quoting Rogers, 875 F.2d at 1001) (alterations omitted). 

Punchbowl News’s public association with its founders 

further demonstrates that the use of the Mark is not explicitly 

misleading. An expressive work is less likely to be 

misleading when it clearly discloses its origin. See Dr. 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 19 of 24
16 PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC

Seuss, 983 F.3d at 463 (finding a title not explicitly 

misleading because, in part, “the cover conspicuously lists 

[the actual creators], not Dr. Seuss, as authors”). Here, 

Punchbowl News promotes its connection to its founders on 

its website. For instance, the “About Us” page displays a 

large image of the co-founders and states that “Punchbowl 

News is a membership-based news community founded by 

journalists and best-selling authors Jake Sherman and Anna 

Palmer, and co-founded by veteran Capitol Hill reporter 

John Bresnahan.” And Punchbowl News’s publications state 

“by John Bresnahan, Anna Palmer, and Jake Sherman” at the 

top of the page near Punchbowl News’s name.

Punchbowl responds that AJ Press does not always use 

the founders’ names in conjunction with the Mark. In 

particular, AJ Press does not mention the founders on 

Punchbowl News’s homepage. This does not change our 

analysis. AJ Press frequently publicizes Punchbowl News’s 

association with its founders and attributes its content to 

them. See Gordon, 909 F.3d at 269 (explaining that Rogers

“is not a mechanical test” and “all the relevant facts and 

circumstances must be considered”). Any reasonable reader 

of the Punchbowl News website would see the connection 

between the publication and the founders; indeed, the 

connection to three veteran political reporters is part of 

Punchbowl News’s selling point. Nothing required AJ Press 

to identify its founders at every possible turn to avoid 

association with Punchbowl.

Contrary to Punchbowl’s argument, this case is very 

different from Gordon, which “demonstrate[d] Rogers’s 

outer limits.” Id. at 268. There, defendants used the 

plaintiff’s trademarked catchphrase “Honey Badger don’t 

care” as the core content of its greeting cards. Id. at 261. In 

concluding there was “at least a triable issue of fact,” we 

relied on the fact that the defendants “simply used 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 20 of 24
PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC 17

[plaintiff’s] mark with minimal artistic expression of their 

own, and used it in the same way that [plaintiff] was using 

it—to identify the source of humorous greeting cards in 

which the bottom line is ‘Honey Badger don’t care.’” Id. at 

271. In at least some greeting cards, the plaintiff’s mark 

“was used without any other text.” Id. 

No similar facts are at play in this case. AJ Press uses 

the Punchbowl Mark in conjunction with its own slogan, the 

names of its founders, and its logo to develop its brand in a 

distinct media market. See Dr. Seuss, 983 F.3d at 462–63 

(distinguishing Gordon on similar grounds, even when the 

defendant “used the marks in an illustrated book just as 

Seuss did”). AJ Press’s disparate use of the Punchbowl 

Mark sharply differentiates this case from Gordon. See 

Gordon, 909 F.3d at 261 (noting that “on every prior 

occasion in which we have applied the [Rogers] test, we 

have found that it barred an infringement claim as a matter 

of law”). This is not a case in which “the defendant’s 

expressive work consisted of the mark and not much else.” 

Dr. Seuss, 983 F.3d at 462 (describing Gordon). 

In short, no reasonable buyer would believe that a 

company that operates a D.C. insider news publication is 

related to a “technology company” with a “focus on 

celebrations, holidays, events and memory-making.” We 

conclude that, under our precedents, AJ Press’s 

incorporation of the Punchbowl Mark in its news 

publication’s name is not explicitly misleading. This 

resolves not only the Lanham Act claims, but the state law 

claims as well. E.S.S. Ent., 547 F.3d at 1101.

C

Conceding that “evidence of actual confusion may not 

be a primary consideration” under Rogers, Punchbowl 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 21 of 24
18 PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC

nonetheless argues that this kind of evidence is germane “to 

whether the parties are using the marks in similar ways.” 

Specifically, Punchbowl contends that the district court erred 

in determining that survey evidence supposedly 

demonstrating actual consumer confusion is not relevant. 

Punchbowl is mistaken. 

In Brown, we explained that “[t]o be relevant, evidence 

must relate to the nature of the behavior of the [junior] user, 

not the impact of the use.” 724 F.3d at 1246. Consumer 

confusion is a potential result—i.e., impact—of an explicitly 

misleading mark. It does not prove the answer to the legal 

question whether the use is explicitly misleading under 

Rogers. See id. Accordingly, given the First Amendment 

interests at stake, “[t]he Rogers test dr[aws] a balance in 

favor of artistic expression and tolerates ‘the slight risk that 

the use of the trademark might implicitly suggest 

endorsement or sponsorship to some people.’” Dr. Seuss, 

983 F.3d at 462 (quoting Rogers, 875 F.2d at 1000) 

(alteration omitted). Our case law is thus clear that we may 

not “conflate[] the second prong of the Rogers test with the 

general . . . likelihood-of-confusion test, which applies 

outside the Rogers context of expressive works.” Twentieth 

Century Fox, 875 F.3d at 1199 (citing Mattel, 296 F.3d at 

900).

Further, our decision in Brown directly rejected the 

relevance of the type of survey data that Punchbowl seeks to 

advance. In Brown, we explained that “a survey 

demonstrating that consumers of the Madden NFL series 

believed that [Jim] Brown endorsed the game . . . would not 

support the claim that the use was explicitly misleading to 

consumers.” 724 F.3d at 1246. Dr. Seuss provides another 

example. See 983 F.3d at 462. There, we held that the title 

of an allegedly infringing work was not explicitly misleading 

while noting that “evidence of consumer confusion in [an] 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 22 of 24
PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC 19

expert survey does not change the result.” Id. Punchbowl

argues that Dr. Seuss is distinguishable because the cover of 

the junior users’ book in Dr. Seuss conspicuously listed the 

junior users as the authors. But this limitation was not 

dispositive in Dr. Seuss, and AJ Press here has 

conspicuously associated its publication with its three 

founders, as we discussed above.

Survey evidence of consumer confusion is thus not 

relevant to the question of whether AJ Press’s use of the 

Mark is explicitly misleading, which is a legal test for 

assessing whether the Lanham Act applies. See Brown, 724 

F.3d at 1246. Because AJ Press uses the Mark “in an entirely 

different market” and as “only one component of the larger 

expressive work,” Punchbowl News is not explicitly 

misleading as to its source. Gordon, 909 F.3d at 270–71.

III

Finally, we address Punchbowl’s contention that the 

district court erred in denying its request for a Rule 56(d) 

continuance to allow for additional discovery. Punchbowl 

sought discovery relating to: (1) whether AJ Press was aware 

of Punchbowl’s use of the Mark; (2) the extent to which AJ 

Press may have caused actual confusion in the market; and 

(3) the degree to which AJ Press has used the Mark to 

identify itself as the source for a broad range of products and 

services. The district court’s denial of Punchbowl’s motion 

was not an abuse of discretion. 

Twentieth Century Fox forecloses any requested 

continuance for discovery into AJ Press’s awareness of 

Punchbowl’s use of the Mark. See 875 F.3d at 1199–1200 

(explaining that “Fox’s reason for selecting the ‘Empire’ 

name” and “Fox’s prior knowledge of Empire’s trademarks” 

are not “relevant to either prong of the Rogers test”). As 

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 23 of 24
20 PUNCHBOWL, INC. V. AJ PRESS, LLC

discussed above, survey evidence of consumer confusion is 

also not relevant to the Rogers analysis. See id. at 1199; Dr.

Seuss, 983 F.3d at 462; Brown, 724 F.3d at 1246.

Further discovery into the degree to which AJ Press uses 

Punchbowl News as a source identifier was also not 

necessary in these circumstances. As explained above, 

Punchbowl’s source-identifier argument operates at the 

wrong level of generality for the inquiry into whether the 

parties’ uses are the same. Thus, the information sought was 

not germane. Additionally, the record is already replete with 

evidence as to how both companies used the name 

“Punchbowl” in their operations. Accordingly, the district 

court’s denial of a continuance to permit further discovery 

was not an abuse of discretion.

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 

court is

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-55881, 11/14/2022, ID: 12585722, DktEntry: 56-1, Page 24 of 24