Kp Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., et al.
Decided December 8, 2004. David Hackett Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.
Docket 03-409 · 543 U.S. 111 (2004) · Cited 281 times
Holding
A party raising the statutory affirmative defense of fair use to a claim of trademark infringement does not have a burden to negate any likelihood that the practice complained of will confuse consumers about the origin of the goods or services affected.
The Court’s statement of the holding, from the opinion’s syllabus. The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court — read the official opinion for authority.
How the Justices voted
Decided 9–0.
Majority · 9
“Concurring” means agreeing with the outcome; any split shown is the Court’s judgment, not each Justice’s reasoning. Source: the Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.), Washington University.
Precedents cited
Supreme Court decisions this opinion relies on, ordered by how often it cites each. Cases in our collection link through; others are named.
- Canal Co. v. Clark · 80 U.S. 311 (1872)
- Russello v. United States · 464 U.S. 16 (1983)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. · 505 U.S. 763 (1992)
- Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc. · 469 U.S. 189 (1985)
- Hibbs v. Winn · 542 U.S. 88 (2004)
- William R. Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. · 265 U.S. 526 (1924)
- Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. Hall's Safe Co. · 208 U.S. 554 (1908)
Cited by
Later Supreme Court opinions in our collection that cite this case.
- United States v. Alvarez · 567 U.S. 709 (2012)
Official text
Read the official opinion (U.S. Reports, govinfo.gov)
Explore from here
David Hackett Souter’s profile · All Supreme Court opinions · The Supreme Court
Source: Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinions (2004). Citation count from the Free Law Project’s CourtListener bulk data. Data last verified 2026-07-03. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).