The appellate court reversed, however, finding that a jury could find the opposite - that consumers also might not be confused into thinking they were buying a Nike product. In the Mike/Nike case, the lower court decided that the two words were so similar as to likely confuse consumers.

Nathan compared the lawsuit before her to the Seventh Circuit’s decision in a case involving products featuring the word “Mike” and a “swoosh” identical to Nike’s famous logo.

The district court judge then laid out the standard for proving trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, which requires that the plaintiff show that its mark is entitled to protection and that “defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause consumers confusion as to the origin or sponsorship of the defendant’s goods.” On Beyoncé’s motion for partial summary judgment and entry of a permanent injunction, Nathan's memorandum opinion noted that there was 'no dispute' that by marketing to the betrothed, the defendants chose their name 'in order to capitalize off of the exceedingly famous Beyoncé mark.' However, Nathan continued, 'that alone does not establish likelihood of confusion.' Moreover, the defendants claimed they marketed their products specifically to engaged couples. The defendants countered that Beyoncé had provided no evidence that they infringed on her trademark or suffered any damages. The lawsuit requested an injunction to stop Feyoncé from selling t-shirts, sweatshirts, mugs and other merchandise as well as the company’s profits, damages and attorney fees. Single Ladies tells the tale of female empowerment - the protagonist celebrates her newly found status as a single woman in a dance club telling her ex-boyfriend (who is jealous of the attention that she is receiving from other men) that if “you liked it, then you shoulda put a ring on it.”

Beyonce single ladies reversed