The Battle Over the Smashburger Trademark Is Escalating

Posted on May 19, 2026 by Mandour & Associates

Anyone who loves a good meat patty has undoubtedly tried a smash burger in recent years. These flattened culinary delights provide a crispy form of hamburger that traps juices within the meat. What many people may not realize is that one company actually owns the Smashburger trademark. However, challenges over this brand’s intellectual property rights are increasing.

Smash burgers are not a recent food evolution. In fact, some historians believe the first hamburger in America was likely a smash burger. However, the term exploded in popularity after the restaurant chain Smashburger IP Holder LLC (i.e., Smashburger) opened in 2007. This helped the company secure various trademark registrations at the time.

The brand has faced several intellectual property issues over the years. However, a recent trademark filing could mean additional trouble for the Smashburger trademark.

The Fight Over the Smashburger Trademark

Considering the long history of smash burgers in America, it’s no surprise that the Smashburger fast food giant has run into problems. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) recently denied registration for “Smashburger,” saying it merely described a cooking technique. The company also faced pushback over a recent logo rebrand.

Still, Smashburger IP Holder LLC has managed to secure various trademarks from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Some of these have even become incontestable trademarks – which grants the company heightened protection from challenges to their rights. Still, this did not stop another brand from attempting to trademark a similar term.

On October 24, 2025, Bam Holding submitted an application to trademark their “Junk Smash Burger” logo. In the logo, the word “burger” is not capitalized, and “smash burger” is presented as two words rather than one. This could potentially be an effort to distinguish the brand from the more popular Smashburger business. However, it seems this effort was not enough.

Smashburger Brand Files Opposition

On May 12, 2026, Smashburger IP Holder LLC filed a trademark opposition against the Junk Smash Burger trademark application. In the filing, the brand claims that registering the term would cause consumer confusion and dilute its brand. Since Bam Holding plans to use the name for its own burger brand, it seems obvious how such confusion could arise.

Between a likelihood of confusion and trademark dilution claims, Bam Holding could have an uphill battle ahead of it. The dispute seemingly stems from the brand’s desired logo, which features the words “smash burger” – just like the various logos used by Smashburger IP Holder LLC. However, it’s also easy to envision a scenario where Smashburger could lose its rights.

Put simply, trademarks cannot be merely descriptive. This is why the EUIPO rejected the application from Smashburger IP Holder LLC. At a minimum, the smash burger cooking technique has been around for decades. So, how can one company claim ownership over such a popular cooking method?

Smashburger: The Right Place at the Right Time

In most cases, well-known culinary techniques cannot simply be trademarked. However, one must look at the context surrounding the Smashburger trademark. Back when the popular company opened in 2007, the term “smash burger” as a cooking method was not nearly as mainstream as it is today.

While these burgers are nothing new, the name Smashburger for a brand certainly was. When most consumers heard the words “smash burger” back in 2007, they immediately thought of the Smashburger fast food brand. This alone could make the term a distinctive trademark. The increased use of this terminology happened only after the fact.

However, the Smashburger trademark could possibly become generic. “Genericide” has occurred to many popular trademarks – ranging from Aspirin to Escalator. Smashburger IP Holder must continue to fight to prevent their trademark from becoming generic. Filing trademark oppositions is one way that companies do this.

Could the Smashburger brand one day lose its intellectual property rights? Possibly. Still, it seems the brand is ready to fight tooth and nail to stop this from happening.

Meta Trademark Dispute Could Upend Facebook Parent Company

Posted on April 28, 2026May 8, 2026 by Mandour & Associates

It’s been nearly half a decade since Facebook rebranded to Meta. The brand is now so well-known that it’s easy to assume the social media giant owns its name in the intellectual property world. However, securing the Meta trademark hasn’t been a straightforward effort. In fact, a new administrative filing could upend the entire process.

Just under five years ago – around the same time Facebook rebranded to Meta – the company filed a trademark application for “Meta.” Almost immediately, the company faced lawsuits and pushback over its attempt. News about these issues somewhat died down after Mark Zuckerberg’s company purchased other brands featuring the name.

However, a new trademark opposition has shown that one company is still not giving in.

Meta Platforms vs Metaformers

The brand formerly known as Facebook – Meta Platforms – filed multiple applications to register the Meta trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). After some administrative issues, one of the company’s applications was published in the Official Gazette. That’s when Metaformers showed up on the scene.

The smaller Virginia company submitted an opposition in early 2024. This case is still pending, but Metaformers apparently did not want to wait for the outcome. On April 22, 2026, the brand filed another opposition against a separate trademark application filed by Meta Platforms. This means the social media juggernaut is currently facing multiple hurdles from a company that’s a fraction of its size.

This certainly has all the elements of a David versus Goliath story, and while it has far fewer resources, Metaformers may have the upper hand.

A Meta Trademark Battle on Multiple Fronts

Facebook’s rebrand to Meta has been – in a word – turbulent for the company. The entire purpose of the rebrand was to push Zuckerberg’s virtual metaverse focus. The legal issues that arose, which included lawsuits from MetaX, were the least of the brand’s problems. Nearly five years and $70-80 billion in losses later, the metaverse is effectively dead.

Unfortunately for Zuckerberg, ending support for his metaverse endeavor doesn’t reverse the rebrand. With the company now facing multiple trademark oppositions from Metaformers, it has found itself in the unenviable position of protecting a moniker that represents the brand’s biggest and most embarrassing failure.

Worse yet, the platform could be in a losing battle. While Metaformers didn’t immediately seek trademark rights over the Meta trademark and related terms, it has seemingly used the name in commerce since 2001. Moreover, the USPTO approved the “Meta” trademark for the brand just three months after Meta Platforms first sought to register its new name.

What Happens Now?

The problem for Meta Platforms isn’t that it shares a name with another company. This happens all the time. For instance, there’s a Delta brand that sells faucets and another that offers airline travel. The two companies can coexist – each with trademark rights over their respective names – because there’s no likelihood of confusion between them.

No one will look at a Delta faucet and think the airline manufactures it. Unfortunately for the Zuckerberg empire, Metaformers offers software solutions, data storage, cloud modernization, IT consulting, data mining, and computer services. Clearly, the services offered by one company are at least tangentially related to those provided by the other.

This case now stands before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Even as the 2024 opposition makes its way through the process, Meta Platforms has to now respond to the new opposition before June 21, 2026. There’s no way to predict how these cases will end with 100% certainty, but there’s no denying that Zuckerberg’s Meta trademark could be in danger.

It seems the failed metaverse is a gift that keeps on giving.

Battle for Middle-Earth Trademark: LOTR Brand Targets LGBTQ Agency

Posted on April 14, 2026April 17, 2026 by Mandour & Associates

In the decades since J.R.R. Tolkien created the fable of Middle Earth, the fantasy world has enjoyed a consistent place in pop culture. Even now, The Hunt for Gollum film is in production for a 2027 release. The series features epic imaginary battles, but a real-world fight is currently emerging over a popular Lord of the Rings trademark.

The current intellectual property dispute involves the fictional land of Rivendell from the Middle Earth saga. The National Gay Marketing Corporation submitted an application to trademark the term “Rivendell Media.” Many consumers might immediately think of Tolkien’s work when they hear “Rivendell,” but due to how long the LGBTQ agency has operated, this case could get very interesting.

The Fight Over a Lord of the Rings Trademark

The National Gay Marketing Corporation filed its trademark application on December 10, 2024. From the start, the organization ran into several issues that interfered with its potential trademark registration. However, these problems all appeared to be technicalities. Examining attorneys at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) did not mention Middle Earth at all in their correspondence.

In October 2025, the group overcame all these issues and had “Rivendell Media” published in the Trademark Official Gazette. At that point, Middle-earth Enterprises, LLC, began pushing back against the application. The company submitted a trademark opposition to block registration, claiming that consumers might think the LGBTQ brand was somehow linked to Middle Earth.

While this might otherwise be a solid argument, the first use of “Rivendell Media” could raise issues for the Tolkien-linked brand.

Issues of Priority

There’s no debate that Middle-earth Enterprises owns rights to the term “Rivendell.” The company has several valid trademarks, some registered back in 2008. And even if there were no likelihood of confusion between the brands, it would be easy to see how “Rivendell Media” could potentially dilute the branding power of the popular Lord of the Rings trademark.

However, things get interesting when you realize that Rivendell Media is an established brand that’s been around for decades. The company was founded in 1979. Since then, it has offered advertising services for local and regional LGBTQ publications. While the “Rivendell” of Middle Earth was contrived long before 1979, it seems to have only recently been used in commerce.

That’s a defining characteristic of U.S. trademark law. The USPTO will not register a trademark unless commercial use has occurred. None of the several registrations mentioned in the filing by Middle-earth Enterprises mentions commercial use anywhere near as early as 1979. This could pose unique challenges when going up against a brand with a nearly half-century history.

What Happens Next?

The dispute between Middle-earth Enterprises and the National Gay Marketing Corporation may prove extremely complicated. Rivendell was linked to The Lord of the Rings long before Rivendell Media began offering services to LGBTQ brands. However, Rivendell Media clearly began providing commercial services under the name decades before Middle Earth did, and the use has now gone on for years.

Since an opposition was filed, the National Gay Marketing Corporation must submit an answer to the USPTO. Failure to do so by June 12, 2026, will result in trademark abandonment. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to predict what may happen next.

The two parties may reach an agreement that allows mutual use. The effort to trademark Rivendell Media may also cease, but this seems unlikely since the brand has existed since 1979. Even if the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) makes a decision in the case, either party may file federal litigation if they don’t like the outcome.

Put simply, this Lord of the Rings trademark dispute could make the Battle for Middle Earth look like a playground skirmish.

Woodstock Trademark Owners Target Festival Despite Name Change

Posted on March 27, 2026April 3, 2026 by Mandour & Associates

The 1969 Woodstock Festival was a turning point in counterculture history. While the event itself was aligned with anti-capitalist ideology, the organizers secured commercial rights over the Woodstock trademark in 1978. And while it’s been over a quarter-century since the last official festival, recent federal filings show the owners are still fighting to protect the brand.

On March 24, 2026, Woodstock IP, LLC filed a trademark opposition against another festival organizer. The target was Alexander Richard Klinge, a man who attempted to register the name “Wubstock” for an upcoming music festival held in Iowa. The interesting issue is that this battle seemed to be over even before Woodstock’s official owners filed the Opposition.

A Tight Grip on the Woodstock Trademark

The owners of the Woodstock brand filed their first trademark application in 1978. While many may have seen such commercialization as a betrayal of the original festival’s values, it ensured the men who organized the event maintained control of the trademark. This certainly allowed them to cash in on the follow-up festivals in 1994 and 1999.

However, the 1999 festival was – put simply – an absolute trainwreck. In fact, that’s the actual name of the Netflix documentary that focuses on the event. Due in part to bad publicity and monetary issues, there have been no other festivals since that year. However, this hasn’t prevented the owner from capitalizing on the name.

Enter Wubstock, a 2-day electronic music festival. While Wubstock organizers didn’t directly use the Woodstock trademark, the owners of the original brand felt the name was too similar. That’s why they took swift action when organizers of Wubstock sought registration in June 2025. While the new event’s organizer seemed to concede, the issue still ended up before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Woodstock vs. Wubstock

In its opposition, Woodstock IP, LLC claims that registration of Wubstock would confuse consumers. The complaint states that the festival name creates “a false sense of connection” with the actual Woodstock brand. In any other instance, it would be up to the Wubstock organizers to prove that registration would not create a likelihood of confusion with the Woodstock trademark.

However, it seems likely that there will be no attempt to do so. The owners of Woodstock sent a cease and desist letter to Alexander Klinge regarding the festival. In response, Klinge said he would end all use of the “Wubstock” name to avoid any perceived infringement of the Woodstock trademark. The festival name was abruptly changed to Sonic Roots.

However, it seems that Klinge did not act quickly enough for Woodstock. Less than two weeks after he promised to end any promotion under the Wubstock name, Woodstock IP, LLC filed its opposition. The brand noted that Klinge agreed to withdraw his application voluntarily, but that it had not been done in a “timely manner.”

Is a Legal Fight Coming?

Now that a formal opposition has been filed, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is involved. On paper, the Wubstock applicant has until May 23, 2026, to file an answer with the TTAB. In many cases, we would have to wait and see what happens next. Filing an answer by the deadline would be necessary if the owner of the opposed application wanted to fight back.

However, this doesn’t seem to be the case with Wubstock. As promised in Klinge’s response to Woodstock IP, LLC, it seems that the Wubstock moniker has been scrubbed from existence. A rebranding process clearly occurred, but the owners of the Woodstock trademark still filed an opposition. If Klinge chooses not to respond, Wubstock will become an abandoned trademark.

The real question is whether the opposition was even necessary.

Did Woodstock IP, LLC Need to Go After Wubstock?

No statement of use was filed for Wubstock, which would show commercial use of the trademark. Without it, the USPTO will not grant registration. Additionally, withdrawing an application can take up to four weeks to process. Even without a formal withdrawal of the application, it was likely to die soon due to the lack of an answer.

Of course, the owners of the original brand recently sought permission to use the Woodstock trademark for a marijuana brand. For a company trying to capitalize on a festival with clear anti-capitalistic undertones – a festival that hasn’t had a follow-up in over 25 years – perhaps the Wubstock application didn’t need to die. Perhaps it simply wasn’t dying soon enough.

Donald Trump Has Had a Busy Week at the U.S. Trademark Office

Posted on February 27, 2026March 5, 2026 by Mandour & Associates

It’s no surprise for the President of the United States to find himself in the news. It’s part of the job. However, Donald Trump has had a particularly newsworthy week in an area that often goes unnoticed: American trademark law. The president’s lawyers have been busy submitting requests for new intellectual property (IP) rights and fending off potential trademark infringement.

While the president certainly isn’t dealing with these problems himself, the increasing number of IP issues might soon catch his attention.

Donald Trump Seeking New Trademarks, Defending Old Ones

It made international news when Florida lawmakers voted to rename Palm Beach airport after President Donald Trump. However, eyebrows quickly shot up when the president’s intellectual property company filed to trademark his name for use on airports. This essentially opened the door for Trump to profit from what’s typically considered an honorary naming.

The president also pressured New York to rename an airport after him, offering to unfreeze billions in infrastructure funding if they did so. While it’s unclear how any of this will play out, the president is also facing intellectual property issues that seem more straightforward. Case in point, the “Trump Burger” saga seems to be reaching an inflection point.

People took note when a Texas restaurant chain branded itself as “Trump Burger.” The restaurant was overtly pro-Trump, but it wasn’t linked to the president. Ownership disputes eventually led to a company fracture. Two separate parties claim ownership over the franchise, and one sought to register “MAGA Burger” with the U.S. Trademark Office.

Trump’s people quickly filed a trademark opposition.

Additional Attempts to Profit From the MAGA Movement

Watching the “Trump Burger” fiasco unfold has been interesting. It involved ownership disputes, allegations of sham marriages and visa overstays, lawsuits, and even deportation proceedings. Now that Trump’s lawyers have officially become involved to stop the “MAGA Burger” trademark from going through, the end of this story is likely within sight.

However, it appears the president now has intellectual property disputes on other fronts. Two trademark cancellation filings were filed with the Trademark Office on February 26, 2026, by businesses related to the Trump Organization. These filings targeted existing registrations for “MAGA Rats” and “MAGA Grace.”

The MAGA Rats trademark appears to belong to a Florida company that produces pro-Trump clothing. On the other hand, MAGA Grace is linked to a Chinese company that sells bags and accessories. Considering the president’s hardline stance on intellectual property rights, it’s interesting that these companies were able to secure trademark registration in the first place.

However, this appears to be an oversight that the Trump Organization is ready to correct.

David and David and David Versus Goliath

Some organizations might buckle under the weight of so many simultaneous legal issues. However, the Trump Organization has the resources of a billionaire and the President of the United States at its disposal. There’s little doubt that it will be able to handle new registrations, old fights, and new battles simultaneously.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has consistently upheld the trademark rights of Donald Trump. With the president’s handpicked director at the helm of the agency, it would be unsurprising if his winning streak were to continue. However, it’s hard to deny that mentions of “MAGA” would likely always bring the president to mind. Essentially, the president has a point.

The USPTO will need to decide whether the companies facing opposition and cancellation from the Trump Organization could create consumer confusion by merely existing. If recent history has taught us anything, though, there’s a high likelihood that the POTUS will walk away from these fights with more than he started with.

Popeye Enters Public Domain, But a Trademark Fight Is Brewing

Posted on February 18, 2026February 19, 2026 by Mandour & Associates

Generations of children grew up enjoying Popeye the Sailor Man. That’s why it was big news when the character’s copyright registration expired in January 2025. At that point, the original incarnation of the quasi-superhero could be used by anyone in the public domain. However, a recent filing shows that the Popeye trademark may still offer some protection.

A trademark opposition filed by the character’s owner, Hearst Holdings, Inc., alleges that a wrestling company is trying to misuse its intellectual property. Freedom Pro Wrestling filed an application to register the term “Popeye” just nine days after the Popeye copyright expired. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published the application after an initial denial.

At that point, it seems the owners of the Popeye trademark ate their spinach and got ready for a fight.

Does the Popeye Trademark Still Have Protection?

It’s important to note that the expiration of a brand’s copyright does not affect its trademark rights. This became abundantly clear during Disney’s effort to protect Mickey Mouse, even after the character’s copyright expired. While there’s nothing to stop anyone from using the original Mickey Mouse – or Popeye, for that matter – trademark rights do still provide some protections.

For instance, the Popeye trademark prevents anyone from using the term “Popeye” in a way that might confuse consumers. Hearst Holdings does not own the word “Popeye.” This means other brands may be able to use the character’s name and likeness in a variety of ways. The only issue arises if such use could create a likelihood of confusion or trademark dilution.

That’s precisely what Hearst Holdings claims will happen if the wrestling organization receives the Popeye trademark.

Is This a Valid Trademark Opposition?

When the USPTO initially received Freedom Pro Wrestling’s trademark application, an examining attorney refused the application with a non-final action. This refusal was related to the existing rights of Hearst Holdings. However, the wrestling company altered its application to specify specific venues where it would use the Popeye trademark.

This was apparently enough to assuage the concerns of the USPTO. The application was published in the Official Gazette for an opposition period. This is an important part of the trademark timeline, and it’s where Hearst Holdings took note. In its opposition filing, the company claims that registration would confuse consumers.

The owner of Popeye claims that consumers may believe the services offered by Freedom Pro Wrestling are somehow related to the existing Popeye trademark. The holding company also claims that registration of the name will result in trademark dilution. Put simply, this means the strength of the existing trademark would be diminished in consumers’ minds.

So, what can we expect next?

The Road Ahead

Now that Hearst Holdings filed an opposition notice, Freedom Pro Wrestling has until April 13, 2026, to submit a response. If they do so, this will begin a process with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Both sides will have an opportunity to argue its case. The case could extend far into 2027, and if one side doesn’t accept the conclusion, a lawsuit could be filed.

However, it’s possible that Freedom Pro Wrestling will not submit a response. In this situation, they will have abandoned their application and secured no rights over the Popeye trademark. This is a common outcome, particularly when smaller organizations face off against massive corporations. However, the wrestling group may have a case if they move forward.

In its filing, Hearst Holdings makes a broad claim about confusion. It says confusion would exist because wrestling involves fighting – and Popeye is “at least after eating spinach, good at” fighting. The result of this case will rely on whether the company can prove that consumers might confuse wrestling services with its existing Popeye trademark.

In light of their considerable resources, it’s a fair assumption that Hearst Holdings will be “strong to the finish” in this case.

As Physical Media Resurges, Blockbuster Fights to Protect Trademark

Posted on January 27, 2026February 5, 2026 by Mandour & Associates

The last time most people heard about Blockbuster was during the “meme stock” craze of 2021. While GameStop led the way, plenty of people made and lost money on the outdated video store stock. However, a new trademark opposition filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) shows that the Blockbuster trademark – and the brand itself – is far from dead.

While one franchised location of Blockbuster remains in Oregon, the company has essentially been defunct for a decade. This did not stop the brand – now operating as BB Liquidating, Inc. – from filing a trademark opposition notice on January 15, 2026. Their target? A farm supply company that apparently thought its deer food supplement could “Make it a Blockbuster Night.”

Blockbuster Trademark Opposition Filed

In July 2025, Southern Feed and Seed, LLC, submitted a trademark application for “Block Buster,” the name given to their deer feed supplement. Even though the video store rental company exists mainly in nostalgic memories, Blockbuster sought to prevent registration.

If Southern Feed and Seed merely named their supplement “Block Buster,” there would likely be no issue. After all, a primary purpose of trademark law is to prevent a likelihood of confusion. While the names “Blockbuster” and “Block Buster” certainly sound the same, it’s unlikely that any consumer would think a defunct video store released a deer feed supplement.

Unfortunately for Southern Feed and Seed, they may have taken it a step too far in an attempt to trade on Blockbuster’s nostalgic appeal.

Nostalgia: Bringing Back a Brand

Over the past few years, consumers have increasingly become disillusioned with streaming services. Oversaturation in the market and the realization that you don’t actually own digital purchases have not helped the industry. This change in circumstances has led to a huge resurgence in physical media ownership.

This, combined with today’s unparalleled popularity of nostalgia, has reminded people of what it was like to browse the aisles of their local Blockbuster store in the ’90s and early aughts. Perhaps this is why Southern Feed and Seed made the branding for their product look nearly identical to a longstanding Blockbuster trademark.

In the application, they included a trademark specimen showing their use of the term “Block Buster” in commerce. In the opposition filing, Blockbuster notes that the specimen uses the “famous torn ticket design mark, yellow and blue color scheme, and… similar font” made popular by the original Blockbuster Video logo.

This decision could derail the entire trademark application process.

What Happens Now?

In a situation where a seed and feed store simply sought to trademark “Block Buster,” it’s possible the application would have sailed through the process. Unfortunately, it appears the attempt to appeal to nostalgia may have violated several existing Blockbuster trademarks. As it turns out, it’s not just the remaining Blockbuster that could be affected.

Last year, the corporate brand garnered media attention when it began hosting pop-up events at fan conventions. Affectionately referred to as “The Blockbuster Experience,” fans can shop the aisles in a true-to-its-roots video store. Clearly, the company that quickly lost its footing when Netflix took over the world hasn’t quite given up yet.

For now, Southern Feed and Seed has until March 16, 2026, to file a response with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). If they fail to do so, their application will become abandoned. If they choose to fight back, they may have an uphill battle thanks to their seemingly clear imitation of the Blockbuster trademark.

In the end, the feed brand may need to “Be Kind, Rewind” their marketing strategy.

Disney Trademark Fight: Can Disney Claim Ownership of “Mouse”?

Posted on December 30, 2025January 15, 2026 by Mandour & Associates

The Disney trademark is one of the most valuable pieces of intellectual property in existence. Even before the company purchased Marvel Entertainment and Star Wars, it was already seen as a global powerhouse. A key component to maintaining such value is protecting the brand’s intellectual property. In fact, it’s currently targeting a company for using the word “mouse.”

If you think this sounds strange, you’re not alone. To be clear, Disney does not own a trademark for the word “mouse.” However, it does have trademark registrations for “Mickey Mouse,” “Minnie Mouse,” and similar terms. Still, many other companies – from Apple to Hasbro – offer products with the word “mouse” in the name. So, what makes this situation different?

It’s complicated.

Do Disney Trademarks Include the Word “Mouse”?

When it comes to trademark law, companies typically do not “own” a word. They can secure exclusive use in commerce of certain terms, but even then, they can’t typically restrict unrelated companies from using similar words. For instance, Delta Airlines and Delta Faucet Company can simultaneously exist because they offer very different products.

In a recent filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Disney submitted a trademark opposition against ClickTheMouse Inc. for their attempt to register “Click the Mouse.” While neither “click the mouse” nor “mouse” are registered Disney trademarks, the global brand claims registration of the term will create consumer confusion and dilute their brand.

While such arguments have successfully been made before, Disney’s filing is unique in several ways.

Indirect Consumer Confusion?

When looking at the basic claims of Disney’s opposition filing, one might think the filing was frivolous. They say “Click the Mouse” and “Mickey Mouse” are phonetically similar. The filing claims consumers may confuse the two brands because they both offer travel services. However, the question arises of whether using the word “mouse” is enough to create confusion.

For many consumers, the answer would be “no.” No one thinks “Burger King” and “Smoothie King” are related just because they share one word. However, a glance at the website of ClickTheMouse Inc. reveals where the problem may lie. As indicated in the opposition filing, Disney images and references are present throughout the travel company’s website.

In fact, the brand seems to focus entirely on planning Disney vacations for its customers. On paper, trademark dilution and consumer confusion between the two brands might seem unlikely. However, intellectual property law does not exist within a vacuum. Even if consumers wouldn’t confuse “click the mouse” with “Mickey Mouse,” the blatant presence of other Disney trademarks on the applicant’s website could easily conflate the two brands in people’s minds to at least think the companies are related.

What Happens Next?

By filing an opposition against the ClickTheMouse application, Disney has initiated a countdown. The applicant now has until February 27, 2026, to submit an answer to the USPTO. If they fail to do so – which is quite common in these situations – they’ll essentially have an abandoned trademark. The brand’s attempt at registration will go no further.

If the travel brand does choose to fight back, both parties will have to present evidence to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). ClickTheMouse will need to prove that its registration wouldn’t create confusion or dilute Disney trademarks. With all the imagery featured on the brand’s website, though, this could be an uphill battle.

Disney is no stranger to intellectual property disputes, so there’s little doubt that they’re ready for a long fight. Whether ClickTheMouse Inc. is prepared to take on a company with a market capitalization of over $200 billion is another matter entirely.

Is Using the Word Emoji Illegal? The Emoji Trademark Saga Continues

Posted on November 30, 2025December 4, 2025 by Mandour & Associates

Very few symbols have established themselves across the entire cultural consciousness. Emoticons are arguably one of them. Using typeset symbols to create emotions [e.g., 🙂 for a smiley face], could date to 1648. Emojis are the clear successor to basic punctuation-based representations. This is why most people are surprised to learn that someone owns the emoji trademark.

Even more surprising, many brands have gotten into big trouble for using the word to advertise their emoji-related products. The company that owns the term – Emoji Co. GmbH – has filed various trademark infringement claims against those who use the word. In fact, they submitted a new filing to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) just before Thanksgiving Day 2025.

Bicycle Company Targeted With Emoji Trademark Claim

On February 23, 2020, Movingetc, LLC submitted a trademark application for the term “iMoji.” The company sought exclusive use of the word for electrical adapters, cables, plugs, and headphones. While the terms “iMoji” and “emoji” might be spelled differently, they sound the same when spoken aloud. This would open the door for trademark litigation.

Because of this potential issue, Emoji Co. GmbH filed a trademark opposition on November 26, 2025. However, there are many questions related to this case. For instance, most trademark infringement claims must show that consumers are likely to confuse the source of products or services.

One must question whether a likelihood of confusion would truly exist between small characters conveying emotions and a line of headphones or electric cables. However, the opposition filing also claims that the famous emoji trademark may become less distinctive if the USPTO grants the iMoji application. Interestingly, this case raises even more intriguing issues than these.

A History of Litigation

You may be asking why the brand that owns the word “emoji” would target a company that doesn’t even appear to use the small pictograms. The reasoning becomes more obvious once you know that – in addition to licensing their intellectual property to Sony Pictures and Nestlé – Emoji Co. GmbH also has its name on medical foot cushions and patient safety restraints.

Put simply, the brand has built an empire across many industries – and it has the backing of major corporations. However, it’s interesting to see how the brand pulled this off. It’s reported that they’ve sued at least 10,000 defendants over simply using the word “emoji” in product titles and descriptions. In many cases, these claims targeted Amazon sellers who were merely describing a trait of their product.

While Emoji Co. GmbH owns several unique emojis, it can’t claim ownership over all emotion-based pictographs. Courts ruled in many cases that infringement was not willful, and they seem to indicate that the word was merely descriptive in its use. Still, the defendants often didn’t respond to court filings – meaning Emoji Co. received default judgments in their favor.

What Happens Now?

There are many unanswered questions involved in this case. Several exist because defendants have rarely chosen to fight the global Emoji Co. GmbH brand. However, this time may be different. Movingetc, LLC spent more than five years trying to get its application approved. They seem unlikely to just give up.

If Movingetc, LLC decides to fight back, they have until January 25, 2026, to file an answer with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The brand might claim that the emoji trademark is generic, and thus not eligible for protection. They could also argue that no confusion or loss of distinctiveness would occur if registration were granted.

Disney Dodges Definitive Ruling Over Mickey Mouse Trademark

Posted on November 19, 2025November 20, 2025 by Mandour & Associates

Mickey Mouse made his first appearance in the 1928 cartoon Steamboat Willie. The popular character quickly became a mainstay for Disney. Interestingly enough, U.S. intellectual property laws have literally been altered to protect the animated rodent since that time. And while the Mickey Mouse trademark seemed to be in danger recently, Disney appears to have pulled off another win.

However, this victory wasn’t in the form of a court ruling. In fact, the company seems to have succeeded by merely avoiding a definitive judicial decision.

Decades of Lobbying Followed by Uncertainty

When Disney released Steamboat Willie, U.S. copyright law only afforded 56 years of protection. Disney lobbied to have this protection extended when its copyright was set to expire in 1984. They were successful in doing this and accomplished the same feat again in 1998. However, 2024 finally saw the expiration of the company’s copyright.

Disney took steps to ensure Mickey still enjoyed protection once his copyright expired. One obvious move was to secure Mickey Mouse trademarks, which would limit how other brands could use the character. It’s because of this that Morgan & Morgan, a Florida-based law firm, suddenly found itself thrust into a dispute with the company. The issue? A commercial featuring Mickey.

The legal practice sought assurances from Disney that they wouldn’t be sued over their commercial. When they received none, they decided to take their case to court. Disney’s current victory stems from Morgan & Morgan choosing to end that fight.

Can the Mickey Mouse Trademark Protect Expired Copyrights?

There’s no question that Disney’s Steamboat Willie copyright has expired. However, its Mickey Mouse trademarks certainly provide some level of protection. However, trademark law typically focuses on whether there will be a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Mickey has already been used outside of Disney when such confusion would be unlikely.

For instance, Screamboat is a horror movie that parodies the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey. The film even has a sequel in the works – rumored to feature Minnie Mouse. Most consumers would not mistake a killer mouse for a work of Disney, but what about the commercial that Morgan & Morgan intended to release?

In that commercial – which would be a black-and-white ad in the same style as Steamboat Willie – Minnie Mouse seeks legal help after Mickey’s boat collides with her vehicle. The ad featured several disclaimers saying that Disney had no link to their brand or advertisement. Still, the law firm was reluctant to use the ad without knowing how Disney would respond.

Disney Secures Victory by Avoiding a Ruling

Morgan & Morgan claimed that Disney would not provide clarity on whether it would pursue legal action if the firm’s commercial aired. The entire point of their declaratory judgment lawsuit was to have the courts decide whether their use of Mickey and Minnie was within legal boundaries. By dropping the lawsuit less than two months later, the law firm and the world still have no definitive answer.

Just months before Morgan & Morgan’s lawsuit, Disney sued a company for selling Mickey Mouse jewelry. However, it appeared the brand was trying to convince consumers that the jewelry was directly from Disney. This is far from what Morgan & Morgan attempted, apparently going above and beyond to eliminate any likelihood of confusion or perceived connection to Disney.

There is no telling if anything went on behind the scenes between the law firm and the entertainment giant. The two parties may have come to an agreement to end the lawsuit. The terms of such agreements are often kept secret. It’s also possible that the legal practice decided that the ad was no longer worth the hassle of trademark litigation.

Regardless, Disney’s Mickey Mouse trademark seems to have served its purpose for another day – even if we still don’t know how far the brand’s intellectual property rights truly extend.

California Intellectual Property Blog

The Fight Over the Smashburger Trademark

Smashburger Brand Files Opposition

Smashburger: The Right Place at the Right Time

Meta Platforms vs Metaformers

A Meta Trademark Battle on Multiple Fronts

What Happens Now?

The Fight Over a Lord of the Rings Trademark

Issues of Priority

What Happens Next?

A Tight Grip on the Woodstock Trademark

Woodstock vs. Wubstock

Is a Legal Fight Coming?

Did Woodstock IP, LLC Need to Go After Wubstock?

Donald Trump Seeking New Trademarks, Defending Old Ones

Additional Attempts to Profit From the MAGA Movement

David and David and David Versus Goliath

Does the Popeye Trademark Still Have Protection?

Is This a Valid Trademark Opposition?

The Road Ahead

Blockbuster Trademark Opposition Filed

Nostalgia: Bringing Back a Brand

What Happens Now?

Do Disney Trademarks Include the Word “Mouse”?

Indirect Consumer Confusion?

What Happens Next?

Bicycle Company Targeted With Emoji Trademark Claim

A History of Litigation

What Happens Now?

Decades of Lobbying Followed by Uncertainty

Can the Mickey Mouse Trademark Protect Expired Copyrights?

Disney Secures Victory by Avoiding a Ruling

16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, California 92127

2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, California 92614

12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 810 Los Angeles, California 90025

16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, California 92127

2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
Irvine, California 92614

12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 810
Los Angeles, California 90025