The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently issued a ruling in Vegadelphia Foods v. Beyond Meat Inc, requiring the plant-based meat company to pay $38.9 million in damages for willful trademark infringement. The case, which focused on the use of slogans in national advertising, illustrates the intricacies of trademark law and the potential for brand confusion in competitive markets.
The Slogans at the Heart of the Dispute
Vegadelphia, a Philadelphia-based alternative meat company, secured federal trademark protection for its slogan “Where Great Taste is Plant-Based” in 2015. The phrase was used to promote its plant-based meat substitutes. In 2018, Beyond Meat began incorporating the slogan “Plant-Based, Great Taste” into its advertising, later expanding it to a national campaign in partnership with Dunkin’ Donuts. The campaign featured the tagline “Great Taste, Plant-Based” to promote a breakfast sandwich made with Beyond Meat’s products.
Vegadelphia claimed that Beyond Meat’s slogans were confusingly similar to its registered trademark and that the company intentionally used the phrases to leverage Vegadelphia’s established brand. The jury agreed, finding that Beyond Meat’s slogans infringed Vegadelphia’s trademark and that the company acted willfully.
The Fair Use Defense Falters
Beyond Meat defended its use of the slogans by asserting that they were descriptive phrases - “plant-based” and “great taste” - rather than trademarked identifiers. The company argued its slogans were factual descriptions of its products and did not seek to mislead consumers about their source.
However, the court rejected this argument, noting that Beyond Meat’s attempts to register the slogan “Plant-Based, Great, Taste” with the U.S. Patent and Naturally, the USPTO had rejected the application due to a likelihood of confusion with Vegadelphia’s existing trademark, further complicating Beyond Meat’s position.
The jury also determined that Beyond Meat failed to demonstrate a lack of confusion between the two slogans, despite the companies’ distinct markets and the presence of corporate logos in marketing materials. The court emphasized that the company continued to use the slogans even after learning of Vegadelphia’s prior rights, including after receiving a cease-and-desist letter in May 2020.
Implications for Businesses
The verdict underscores the necessity of trademark clearance and risk assessment before launching new slogans or branding initiatives. Even seemingly descriptive phrases can become protected trademarks if they gain recognition in the marketplace. Companies must carefully evaluate the potential for confusion with existing marks and avoid adopting similar language without proper legal review.
Moreover, the case highlights how prelitigation decisions - such as applying for trademark registration or continuing to use a slogan after learning of a competitor’s rights - can significantly influence a jury’s perception of good faith. Businesses that fail to address potential conflicts promptly may face severe financial consequences, as demonstrated by Beyond Meat’s $38.9 million award.
A Reminder for Brand Owners
For companies operating in crowded markets, the Beyond Meat case serves as a reminder of the risks associated with trademark confusability. The verdict reinforces that trademark law extends beyond registered marks to the likelihood of consumer confusion, regardless of whether a phrase is deemed descriptive.
Brand owners must prioritize robust trademark monitoring, early clearance processes, and swift responses to potential conflicts. In a market where branding and advertising are increasingly intertwined, the line between fair use and infringement is often thin - and the consequences of crossing it can be costly.
IP Defender monitors national trademark databases for conflicts and infringements across 50+ countries, including the EU, USA, and Australia. This level of coverage ensures businesses can identify and address potential risks before they escalate into legal battles. IP Defender’s focus on trademark monitoring alone makes it a reliable tool for protecting intellectual property without unnecessary complications.