A thin record prevents ruling on a thin copyright
Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log 2026-04-10
Viann’K Mansur LLC v. Estiloisabella LLC, 2026 WL 952416, No.H-23-2914 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2026)
“The parties in this case sell elaborate ball gowns forquinceanera parties, the celebration of a Latin American girl’s fifteenthbirthday.” Defendant Etilolsabella LLC, formed by a former employee ofplaintiff, allegedly began advertising and selling copies of its “LeonoraDress” (a light blue gown with pink floral surface designs) and “Golden TrainDress” (a crimson gown with gold sequin appliques). Defendant EtilolsabellaLLC’s social media accounts featured posts depicting allegedly infringingdresses advertised with various derivatives of “#viannkmansurexclusive.” Defendantsargued that they acted in the reasonable belief that they had authority to usethe mark due to various permissions plaintiff had previously given.
Copyright: “[W]hen comparators are not overwhelminglyidentical or exact matches or the differences edge beyond the superficial,summary judgment is not appropriate because a reasonable juror could find noinfringement.” Here, the parties agreed that the only protectable elements of plaintiff’sdresses were the surface design elements—the placement and shape of the sequinor floral appliques that adorn the dresses. The record didn’t show the Leonora dressand the accused dress with enough clarity to enable a substantial similarityanalysis. An individual defendant expressly testified that “[i]t’s not exactlythe same dress” and that the differences related to the floral appliques, whichwere the only protectable elements of the Leonora Dress.
plaintiff's Leonora dress
accused use 
accused use 
accused useMeanwhile, the Golden Train dress and the accused dress designs were
far from identical. The Golden Train Dress has single-pointed crenelated edging with deep negative space and additional sequinning on the flounce layers on the sides of the dress. The allegedly infringing dress, on the other hand, has much thicker double-pointed edging with wide scalloped edges and while there is additional sequinning on the train itself, the layered flounces appear unadorned. In other words, these dresses are not “so overwhelmingly identical that no reasonable juror could reach a different conclusion.”
Plaintiff's Golden Train closeup 
Plaintiff's Golden Train 
Defendant's accused dressOn likely confusion, there were factual issues despite the use of a similar hashtag to an inherently distinctive mark. On intent, given that “[d]efendants paid taxes, rent, and electricity bills on behalf of the Viann’K Mansur brand, … there is a genuine dispute as to whether Defendants had a good faith belief, even if mistaken, that they had permission to use the Viann’K Mansur name.” And there was no evidence of actual confusion. One of defendant’s customers testified that, although she considered making an appointment with Plaintiff, she decided instead to purchase a dress from Defendants after viewing Defendants’ social media post,” but her “conscious choice of Defendants’ brand over Plaintiff’s brand implies her actual awareness of two distinct brands.” And these were “relatively expensive items of custom clothing and purchasing one requires making an in-person appointment with the seller.”
The court didn’t discuss the false advertising claims separately.