Wilfong v. Starstruck Entertainment — Contradictory Social Posts Make Trademark Case Exceptional

Background

Jay Wilfong obtained a registration for STARSTRUCK FARM for recreation facilities. Starstruck Entertainment and the Alexander Trust, owners of STARSTRUCK rights associated with music and talent services, successfully petitioned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the registration. Wilfong sought de novo review in federal court.

At trial, Wilfong testified that his business consistently used the full Starstruck Farm name and did not create confusion with music-industry services. Cross-examination confronted him with dozens of social-media posts using “Starstruck” alone and promoting songwriter events, artist development, sponsorship, branding, and industry connections. After the court said the case looked bleak, Wilfong moved to dismiss it with prejudice. The defendants sought more than $500,000 in Lanham Act fees.

The Court’s Holding

The court found the case exceptional, but only from the point when Wilfong’s conduct and evidence materially changed after summary judgment. His original challenge was not frivolous: he had survived summary judgment before the TTAB and in district court. Later marketing, however, increasingly used STARSTRUCK alone for services close to the defendants’ music business, and his trial testimony was flatly contradicted by his company’s posts. The immediate capitulation after impeachment was extraordinary.

The court declined to shift fees incurred before April 2024 and scrutinized rates and duplicated work. It awarded $276,283.35, substantially less than requested, covering reasonable work after the case became exceptional.

Key Takeaways

• Exceptional-case analysis can change over time as a party’s conduct and evidentiary position evolve.
• Social-media marketing can become decisive evidence of trademark use and likely confusion.
• Even when fees are justified, courts may limit recovery to the period of exceptional conduct and reduce excessive or overlapping billing.

Why It Matters

Businesses cannot separate courtroom representations from their live marketing record. Trademark litigants should preserve and continuously review social posts, event promotions, and hashtags, particularly while asserting that their branding avoids confusion. The ruling also offers a measured fee framework: a case need not have been baseless from day one for later conduct to justify fee shifting.