Paw-sibly Confusing: Vogue’s Trademark Fight with Dogue

When canine couture met high fashion in the courtroom, Condé Nast, publisher of Vogue, launched a legal battle over whether the upstart dog fashion magazine Dogue is a harmless parody or a trademark infringement that threatens one of fashion’s most iconic brands.[1]  In 1892, Condé Nast adopted VOGUE as the title of a print fashion magazine, and in the following 134 years, Vogue has become the “most widely recognized and revered fashion publication” in the United States.[2]  Since first registering the VOGUE trademark in 1919, Condé Nast has obtained more than sixty active registrations for the VOGUE Marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).[3]  But with fame comes imitation, as others seek to borrow from the prestige of the VOGUE name.[4]

Consequently, Tasty Work, LLC published Dogue which is a “periodical focusing on dogs, dog fashion and celebrity dog owners.”[5]  In August 2025, Tasty Work, LLC applied to register the mark “Dogue” with the USPTO but was met with a formal notice of opposition in October with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.[6]  In December 2025, when Tasty Work refused to stop using the name, Condé Nast sued for trademark infringement among other claims, arguing that the Dogue canine fashion magazine is confusingly similar to the Vogue brand by mimicking their font and style.[7]

While the proceeding is ongoing, Condé Nast will likely prevail regarding its trademark infringement claim.[8]  The touchstone of trademark infringement is likelihood of consumer confusion.[9]  Here, the likelihood of confusion between Vogue and Dogue is high for a number of reasons.[10]  First, the strength of the mark strongly favors Condé Nast because Vogue is an inherently distinctive and very famous mark in fashion publications, warranting broad protection.[11] Second, the marks are undeniably similar: they differ only by one letter, share the same sound and cadence, and feature a similar font, layout, and minimalist aesthetic.[12]  Third, proximity and overlapping marketing channels favor Condé Nast because both magazines target similar audiences and are likely to be sold through the same distribution channels such as bookstores, newsstands, and online subscriptions.[13]  Fourth, the likelihood of product-line expansion favors Condé Nast, which has used the word “Dogue” for its own projects, including a Dogue competition in 2025 and a digital campaign in 2024 featuring celebrity pets.[14]  Finally, Tasty Work intentionally designed Dogue to resemble Vogue, “confusing consumers into believing that the Dogue magazine was connected or associated with, or licensed by, Condé Nast.”[15] 

Ultimately, this dispute highlights that while parody can sometimes serve as a defense against trademark claims, courts closely scrutinize whether a use is genuine commentary or merely an attempt to capitalize on a famous mark. Even clever wordplay faces steep legal hurdles when it functions as branding rather than parody. [16] If courts conclude that Dogue functions as a commercial identifier likely to cause confusion or imply affiliation with Vogue, the parody defense will likely fail and reaffirm the strong protection afforded to famous trademarks under the Lanham Act.[17] A playful pun may fetch a smile, but it cannot fetch the goodwill of a famous trademark.[18]

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Complaint at 1, 3, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Tasty Work, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-11579 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 5, 2025), available on Bloomberg Law (emphasizing powerhouse that is Condé Nast as a global media company which publishes well-known publications as Wired, GQ, Vanity Fair, Allure, Glamour, and, most famously, Vogue).

[2] Id. at 3 (“The U.S. print and digital editions of Vogue magazine are read by approximately 27 million people each month.”).  Condé Nast has also had a corresponding website (www.vogue.com) since 1998.  Id.

[3] Id. (noting that registrations at issue in lawsuit are incontestable, valid, and subsisting); see Barton Beebe, Trademark Law: An Open-Access Casebook 333–34 (Version 12, 2025), https://www.tmcasebook.org (defining incontestable mark as trademark registered on the Principal Register that, after five consecutive years of continuous use and compliance with statutory requirements under Lanham Act, gains conclusive evidentiary status that limits grounds on which its validity may be challenged); Lanham Act §§ 15 and 33, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1065 & 1115 (listing main requirements registrant must meet to file a Declaration of Incontestability of a Mark Under Section 15).

[4] See also Conde Nast Publications v. Vogue Sch. of Fashion Modelling, 105 F. Supp. 325, 327, 333 (S.D.N.Y. 1952) (holding that Miss Stone, director and sole stockholder of defendant corporation, Vogue School of Fashion Modelling, Inc., is individually liable for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and copyright infringement because she “not only authorized but personally participated in the acts” for her personal gain). 

[5] Aruni Soni, Condé Nast Sues Dog-Fashion Magazine Dogue Over ‘Vogue’ Marks, Bloomberg Law (Dec. 5, 2025, 4:01 PM EST), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/conde-nast-sues-dog-fashion-magazine-dogue-over-vogue-marks.

[6] Id. (finding that while Condé Nast does not currently own trademark for “Dogue,” it is actively pursuing legal action to prevent its use).

[7] See Thomas K. Lauletta, Trademark—C.D. Cal.: Cond Nast Files Complaint Against Dogue Magazine Publisher, Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw IP Law Daily (Dec. 9, 2025), https://www.vitallaw.com/news/trademark-c-d-cal-cond-nast-files-complaint-against-dogue-magazine-publisher/ipm014b5646b0c68a4669a9ecb022b9a71f3a (laying out causes of action alleged in complaint: (1) Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (2) False Designation of Origin and Association, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (4) Common Law Trademark Infringement; (5) Unfair Competition in Violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code; and (6) Common Law Unfair Competition); John Fitzgerald, Vogue chases after canine fashion mag Dogue, claiming infringement, 2025 WL 3525542 (asserting that Condé Nast seeks an order requiring Dogue to stop using name and pay damages, attorney fees and costs).

[8] See Lanham Act § 32, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (imposing liability on those who create likelihood of confusion with registered marks); see alsoLanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (applying to unregistered marks).  Although here, Vogue is a federally registered and protected mark, courts have come to treat § 32 and § 43(a) as interchangeable.  See Beebe, supra note 3, at 436 (asserting that because test for likelihood of confusion is essentially the same under § 32 and § 43(a), courts cite them interchangeably and owners of registered marks make claims typically under both in case some defect in their registration is discovered).

[9] See Gruner + Jahr USA Publ’g v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d 1072, 1074 (2d Cir. 1993) (“[T]o succeed in a Lanham Act suit for trademark infringement, a plaintiff has two obstacles to overcome: the plaintiff must prove [1] that its mark is entitled to protection and, even more important, [2] that the defendant’s use of its own mark will likely cause confusion with plaintiff’s mark.”); Lanham Act § 32, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (showing that actual confusion is not required but that confusion must probable as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the good).

[10] See Beebe, supra note 3, at 455 (explaining development of modern multifactor test within circuit courts “originated either directly or indirectly from the 1938 Restatement (First) of the Law of Torts”); Restatement First Of Torts § 729 (1939) (setting out four factors courts should consider in likelihood of confusion analysis: ((a) the degree of similarity between the designation and the trade-mark or trade name in (i) appearance; (ii) pronunciation of the words used; (iii) verbal translation of the pictures or designs involved; (iv) suggestion; (b) the intent of the actor in adopting the designation; (c) the relation in use and manner of marketing between the goods or services marketed by the actor and those marketed by the other; (d) the degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers); Restatement First Of Torts § 731 (1939) (listing nine additional factors in cases involving noncompetitive goods); Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961) (“Where the products are different, the prior owner’s chance of success is a function of many variables: the strength of his mark, the degree of similarity between the two marks, the proximity of the products, the likelihood that the prior owner will bridge the gap, actual confusion, and the reciprocal of defendant’s good faith in adopting its own mark, the quality of defendant’s product, and the sophistication of the buyers. [T]his extensive catalogue does not exhaust the possibilities . . . .”).

[11] See Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 9–11 (2d Cir. 1976) (introducing spectrum of distinctiveness, and relatedly eligibility to trademark status and degree of protection accorded, in ascending order: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, and (4) arbitrary or fanciful).  Under the Abercrombie spectrum, suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful marks qualify as inherently distinctive and can be protected without a showing of secondary meaning as required for descriptive marks. Id. at 9.

[12] See Soni, supra note 5 (“‘Eliminating any doubt’ that the similar stylization was intentional, Dogue’s Instagram page says Dogue ‘is in the style of Vogue,’ the company said.’”)

[13] See Complaint at 1, Advance Magazine Publishers v. Tasty Work (“To amplify this association, Defendant depicts the DOGUE mark in a style similar to the VOGUE mark’s iconic stylization and, dispelling any doubt as to its intent, proudly displays photographs on its website of Dogue on newsstands next to and surrounded by Vogue magazine.”).

[14] See Dogue, Vogue, https://www.vogue.com/tag/misc/dogue (last visited Mar. 6, 2026) (emphasizing Condé Nast’s prior use of Dogue).

[15] See Complaint at 1, 7, Advance Magazine Publishers v. Tasty Work (stating that Dogue’s website says “inspired by Vogue” and publicly proclaims that Dogue “is in style of Vogue”); Soni, supra note 5 (highlighting that Dogue’s website is “replete” with images of newsstands where issues of Dogue are placed next to Vogue magazines).

[16] Novika Ishar, Condé Nast Sues Dogue Magazine Over Alleged Infringement of Vogue Trademarks, Romano Law (Dec. 29, 2025), https://www.romanolaw.com/conde-nast-sues-dogue-magazine-over-alleged-infringement-of-vogue-trademarks/ (“While parody and creative expression can sometimes provide defenses to trademark claims, courts closely examine whether a junior user is making a genuine expressive comment or instead attempting to benefit commercially from consumer recognition of an established brand.”).

 [17] Id. (underscoring expansive protections afforded to famous and federally registered marks when defending against newer brands that unfairly attempt to capitalize from well-known company’s reputation and goodwill, which in the end harms consumers).

[18] Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC, 599 U.S. 140, 163 (2023) (finding that parody does not excuse trademark use that functions as branding).