NOTUS blocked from rebranding over trademark concerns
A federal judge in Virginia granted the *Washington Star* a temporary restraining order against NOTUS, preventing NOTUS from renaming itself the *Star*. The *Washington Star* argued that the rebrand would infringe its trademark rights, and the court agreed-not requiring NOTUS to remove existing references to “Star” from its current online materials, but blocking the company from making new ones.
The ruling is a setback for NOTUS, which had planned to launch the rebrand promptly after court filings. NOTUS had attempted to buy the trademark from the *Washington star* but couldn’t reach an agreement, and it announced the name change in April before pausing.
The dispute also reflects broader competition for readers in Washington, D.C., after layoffs at the *Washington Post*. A hearing on the *Washington star*’s request for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for July 22, and that outcome will likely determine whether the rebrand proceeds.
A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked NOTUS from renaming itself the Star, giving a partial win to the revived Washington Star.
U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of Virginia granted a temporary restraining order requested by the Washington Star, a conservative daily afternoon newspaper once known in Washington, D.C. After going bankrupt in August 1981, the company is restarting operations and fighting NOTUS in court over its trademark name.
Recommended Stories
In its 19-page lawsuit filed last week, the newspaper argues its competitor cannot rebrand as the Star without infringing upon the plaintiff’s trademark rights.
The judge sided with the Washington Star, ruling that NOTUS cannot use the Star name. However, NOTUS is not legally required to remove any existing mentions of the Star from its website.
“Requiring Defendant to remove references to The Star from its websites or other materials which currently exist in the public domain would not maintain the status quo; rather, it would alter it,” Alston wrote. “Thus, the Court will not require Defendant to take down any current references, but will enjoin Defendant from making new ones.”
The court order marks a notable setback for NOTUS, which was planning to launch the rebrand as soon as this week.
Representatives of the digital news outlet had attempted to buy the trademark directly from the Washington Star, but the two sides couldn’t reach an agreement. NOTUS proceeded with the rebrand anyway, announcing the name change in April. It is now on pause.
Dovid Efune, publisher of the Washington Star and the New York Sun, celebrated the ruling in a statement.
“We welcome the Court’s decision to grant timely relief and protect The Washington Star‘s trademark and rights in the market,” Efune said. “This ruling reinforces our focus on what matters most: reviving a legendary American institution and returning a much needed voice to our nation’s capital.”
The Washington Star and NOTUS are also at odds as they compete for readers’ attention in the local D.C. news space following mass layoffs from the Washington Post. About a third of its staff was let go in February.
The Washington Examiner contacted NOTUS for comment on the ruling.
In a past statement, NOTUS maintained that the Washington Star does not exclusively own the trademark rights, as many other media outlets have used the Star name over the years.
WASHINGTON STAR SUES NOTUS OVER NAME REBRANDING DESPITE GOING BANKRUPT 45 YEARS AGO
“The entity does not and cannot own the word Star, which has been used by and associated with dozens of media publications for over 100 years,” a NOTUS spokesperson told the New York Times. “The entity itself only even claims to have recently adopted The Washington Star, decades after numerous other Star publications have been using Star marks.”
A hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for July 22. Whether the planned NOTUS rebrand proceeds depends on the outcome of the hearing next month.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
