The plaintiff, 213 Management LLC, asserts that it has operated "Nan Xiang Soup Dumplings" restaurant locations since 2006, and that the brand has been recognized by the Michelin Guide. The plaintiff holds multiple federal trademarks registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), covering the English name, the corresponding Chinese characters, the brand's color scheme, and composite marks, registered for services in the categories of soup dumplings and Chinese restaurant services. The brand has established stable goodwill and distinctiveness in the U.S. restaurant market.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, Nanxiang Soup Dumpling Inc., opened a restaurant in Florida in August 2026 and, in commercial contexts such as store signage, online platforms, and menus, adopted an English trade name, Chinese characters, and color scheme highly similar to those of the plaintiff. This is highly likely to cause ordinary consumers to experience source confusion and affiliation confusion, mistakenly believing that the defendant's restaurant is authorized by, affiliated with, or originates from the plaintiff's Michelin-recognized brand.
The plaintiff has filed suit under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125), asserting claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition. The plaintiff has requested a jury trial in its pleadings and has attached evidentiary exhibits, including trademark registration certificates and comparative materials of the parties' storefronts, to the complaint.
This case is a typical commercial identity dispute under the U.S. federal trademark regime involving the appropriation of goodwill and the likelihood of source confusion. The core of the adjudication lies in the holistic assessment of likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act framework. U.S. judicial practice does not require identical marks as a threshold for finding infringement; rather, it applies the Polaroid multi-factor test—a classic multi-factor framework for assessing "likelihood of confusion" established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit—weighing dimensions such as the inherent distinctiveness of the marks, the similarity of appearance and sound, the overlap of service categories, the geographic scope of the market, the sophistication of consumers, the alleged infringer's intent, evidence of actual confusion, and the prior brand's accumulated goodwill.
The plaintiff's federally registered trademarks enjoy the statutory presumption of nationwide validity, and combined with the market goodwill derived from Michelin recognition, the plaintiff holds a significant advantage in establishing the elements of its claims. However, the case inherently presents a defense gap: "Nanxiang" refers to the birthplace of soup dumplings, giving the defendant considerable room to raise a descriptive fair use defense based on geographic origin, arguing that the relevant terms are factual descriptions of the soup dumpling category and lack the function of pointing to a single source.
The case also highlights the boundary distinction under U.S. law between trade name registration and trademark use: the registration of a business entity name itself does not confer trademark immunity. If a trade name is used commercially as an identifier of service source—on store signage, online platforms, menus, and similar contexts—and falls within the scope of another's registered trademark protection, it may still be found to constitute trademark infringement.
At this stage, the case is only at the initial filing phase, and the defendant has not yet filed an answer. The defendant may subsequently raise defenses including prior use, the plaintiff's lack of a local business presence in Florida, and sufficient dissimilarity of the marks to distinguish consumers. The outcome remains uncertain. China Intellectual Property Lawyer Network will continue to follow subsequent developments.
Comment