Long May You Run…Into a Trademark Lawsuit?

Today’s episode sits at the intersection of culture, commerce, and creativity, diving into a trademark dispute that’s got both the fashion and music industries watching closely. It’s a case that asks: Can a rock band’s name really confuse consumers into thinking they’re buying luxury jewelry?

Read the full article

• He Has His Heart of Gold…. Why Not a Chrome Heart, Too?

About the author

• Lori B. Cohen

Transcript

Welcome to Womble Perspectives, where we explore a wide range of topics, from the latest legal updates to industry trends to the business of law. Our team of lawyers, professionals and occasional outside guests will take you through the most pressing issues facing businesses today and provide practical and actionable advice to help you navigate the ever changing legal landscape.

With a focus on innovation, collaboration and client service. We are committed to delivering exceptional value to our clients and to the communities we serve. And now our latest episode.

Today’s episode sits at the intersection of culture, commerce, and creativity, diving into a trademark dispute that’s got both the fashion and music industries watching closely. It’s a case that asks: Can a rock band’s name really confuse consumers into thinking they’re buying luxury jewelry?

Recently, Chrome Hearts—the edgy luxury brand known for its high-end jewelry, apparel, and accessories—filed a lawsuit in California federal court against none other than Neil Young and the members of his touring band. The issue? The band’s name: The Chrome Hearts.

Chrome Hearts, the brand, claims that the use of its name by Young’s backing band creates consumer confusion. They argue that fans might mistakenly believe the brand is somehow affiliated with the band, or worse, that they’re involved in a marketing or licensing deal. And in the world of luxury branding, that kind of confusion can be costly.

Now, trademark law does allow similar—or even identical—marks to coexist, if they’re used for unrelated goods or services. But this case tests the boundaries of that principle. Neil Young’s music falls under International Class 41, which covers entertainment services. Chrome Hearts operates in Classes 14 and 25—jewelry and clothing. So the legal question becomes: Are these goods and services related enough to cause confusion?

To answer that, we turn to a landmark case which laid out a multi-factor test for determining likelihood of confusion. These factors include things like:

• The similarity of the marks
• The nature of the goods and services
• The trade channels used
• Purchasing conditions
• The fame of the existing mark
• Actual confusion

But here’s where things get interesting. Trademark law isn’t rigid—it’s designed to be flexible, responding to the unique facts of each case. As the court said in Interstate Brands v. Celestial Seasonings, a hard-and-fast rule would be “anathema” to trademark law. Instead, courts look at how marks are used in the real world—how consumers encounter them, and whether that use has made a lasting impression.

So let’s talk facts. Is the music of a touring rock band promoting Neil Young’s new album really confusingly similar to high-end clothing and jewelry? Are the same fans buying beer at a concert also shopping for Chrome Hearts leather bags and perfume? Has anyone who bought a CHROME HEARTS® hoodie actually mistaken it for a Neil Young concert hoodie—or vice versa?

These are the kinds of questions the court will have to consider. And they’re not easy to answer. After all, Chrome Hearts is a brand with a cult following, especially among celebrities and fashion insiders. Neil Young, on the other hand, is a legendary musician with a very different fan base. But in today’s world of cross-brand collaborations and influencer marketing, those lines can blur.

And then there’s the lyrical twist. Back in 1976, Neil Young released the song Long May You Run with the Stills-Young Band. The title track includes the line:

“With your chrome heart shining in the sun.”

That lyric predates Chrome Hearts’ trademark registration by more than a decade. So, could Young argue that his use of “chrome heart” is protected by prior common law use? Could it be considered artistic expression rather than branding?

That’s another layer of complexity. Trademark law does make room for fair use and artistic expression, but it’s a delicate balance. If the use of a mark—even in a song lyric—starts to function as a brand identifier, it could cross the line.

Finally, there’s the question of tarnishment. Does Neil Young’s use of “Chrome Hearts” dilute or damage the luxury brand’s image? That’s a subjective call, but it’s one the court may have to weigh.

So what’s the takeaway? For artists, marketers, and brand owners, this case is a reminder that trademark law isn’t just about protecting names—it’s about understanding how those names live in the marketplace. It’s about context, perception, and the ever-evolving relationship between culture and commerce.

Whether you’re launching a new brand, naming a band, or designing concert merch, it pays to think about how your mark might be received—and whether it could step on someone else’s toes.

We’ll be watching this case closely. And if you’re advising clients on trademark strategy, this is one to keep on your radar.

Thank you for listening to Womble Perspectives. If you want to learn more about the topics discussed in this episode, please visit The Show Notes, where you can find links to related resources mentioned today. The Show Notes also have more information about our attorneys who provided today's insights, including ways to reach out to them.

Don't forget to subscribe via your podcast player of choice so that you never miss an episode. Thank you again for listening.