Warner Bros. vs. HomeVestors: Trademark Battle Over “Ugliest House” Branding

When it comes to trademarks, even something that seems playful—like a reality TV show title—can spark a major legal fight. That’s exactly what’s happening in the case of HomeVestors of America v. Warner Bros. Discovery, a dispute that pits a well-established real estate franchisor against a media giant over the use of the word “ugliest.”

At stake is far more than bragging rights over who owns the phrase. This case highlights the power of trademark protection in today’s competitive marketplace, and it raises important questions about the balance between intellectual property rights and freedom of expression in entertainment.

The Background: HomeVestors’ “Ugly Houses” Brand

HomeVestors of America is the company behind the widely recognized slogan “We Buy Ugly Houses.” Since the mid-1990s, it has built a national brand on that concept, running advertising campaigns across billboards, radio, and television. Over time, the company expanded into a contest called “The Ugliest House of the Year”, which has been running since 2007.

The company secured federal trademark registrations for its slogans, including incontestable registrations for variations of “Ugly Houses” and “Ugliest House of the Year.” These registrations provide strong legal protections under the Lanham Act.

So, when Warner Bros. Discovery launched HGTV’s reality series Ugliest House in America, HomeVestors saw a direct conflict. In its view, the show’s title was confusingly similar to its own marks, and the program’s mocking tone could damage its brand’s reputation for improving distressed homes.

The Lawsuit: Trademark Infringement & Dilution

In December 2022, HomeVestors filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Warner Bros. Discovery. The claims include:

Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition – arguing the HGTV show creates a likelihood of consumer confusion about sponsorship or affiliation.
Trademark Dilution – claiming the fame of its brand is being diluted by Warner Bros.’ use.
State Law Violations – including business reputation claims under Delaware law.

HomeVestors also pointed out that Warner Bros. knew about its branding but pressed forward anyway. To HomeVestors, the show not only copied its core concept but also risked tarnishing the goodwill built over decades.

Warner Bros.’ Defense: Free Speech and the Rogers Test

Warner Bros., however, asserts that Ugliest House in America is an expressive work protected by the First Amendment. It relies on the Rogers v. Grimaldi test, which shields titles of creative works from trademark claims unless the title is explicitly misleading or lacks artistic relevance.

The media giant further argues that the phrase “ugliest house” is descriptive and widely used, making it difficult for any one company to claim exclusive rights. In its view, the title clearly describes the show’s content—featuring bizarre and unattractive home designs—and does not suggest HomeVestors is involved.

Recent Developments: Summary Judgment Denied

In August 2025, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews ruled against Warner Bros.’ attempts to dismiss the case at the summary judgment stage.

Likelihood of Confusion – The judge found that there were factual disputes requiring a jury to decide whether consumers might believe the show was connected to HomeVestors.
Unclean Hands Defense – Warner Bros. claimed HomeVestors acted improperly in enforcing its marks, but the court rejected that defense.
First Amendment Protection – The judge declined to rule as a matter of law that the Rogers test applied, leaving that issue for trial.

As a result, nearly all of HomeVestors’ claims will proceed to trial, where a jury will determine whether Warner Bros.’ use of the title violates trademark law.

Why This Case Matters for Trademark Law

This case underscores several important points for businesses:

Trademarks Are Powerful Assets
HomeVestors’ long-standing registrations gave it the leverage to bring a strong claim. Without registered and incontestable trademarks, its case would have been much harder to pursue.
Monitoring and Enforcement Are Essential
Warner Bros. is a global media powerhouse, yet HomeVestors still stepped up to enforce its rights. Businesses of all sizes must actively police the market for infringing uses.
The Rogers Test Isn’t a Free Pass
While entertainment companies often rely on the Rogers test for protection, recent Supreme Court decisions—like Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products (2023)—have narrowed its scope. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing whether expressive titles actually mislead consumers.
Reputation Matters
Even when confusion isn’t clear-cut, tarnishment claims can gain traction if a company can show that its brand image is being harmed by association.

What Businesses Can Learn

If you’re building a brand, whether in real estate, retail, or entertainment, this case carries practical lessons:

Secure Trademark Registrations early and across variations of your core brand.
Develop Brand Guidelines that make enforcement straightforward.
Act Quickly when potential infringement arises—delay can weaken claims.
Get Legal Support from trademark attorneys who can assess both litigation and negotiation strategies.

Conclusion

The Warner Bros. vs. HomeVestors case is more than a quirky battle over who owns the phrase “ugliest house.” It’s a high-stakes example of how trademark law intersects with creative freedom—and the outcome could reshape how courts treat disputes between established brands and entertainment content.

For companies, the message is clear: your brand is one of your most valuable assets. Protecting it means being proactive, strategic, and ready to enforce your rights when necessary.

At SharkMark, we help entrepreneurs, influencers, and businesses safeguard their trademarks and enforce them when challenged. Whether your concern is potential infringement, brand dilution, or competitor misuse, our team ensures your brand identity is legally protected—so you can focus on building your business.