White cursive text reads indie law on a light background, with the dots above the i and l replaced by yellow leaf shapes.
Book A Free Call
Contact Indie Law

Blog

Our Latest Blogs

Your brand is your most important asset. Dive into Indie Law’s resources to guide you through the maze of trademark law and keep your brand safe from copycats and infringers!

What Happens After My Trademark Application Gets Accepted?

Your trademark application cleared the examining attorney. Great news. But if you think the process is finished, it isn’t. Not yet.

There are still steps between approval and registration, and missing any of them can cost you the trademark you just spent months waiting for.

Publication in the Official Gazette

After the examiner approves your application, your mark gets published in the USPTO’s Official Gazette. This is a weekly publication that gives the public a chance to object. Specifically, anyone who believes your trademark would damage them.

The opposition window lasts 30 days. During that time, a third party can file an opposition or request more time to do so.

Most applications sail through without any issues. But if someone does file, you’re looking at a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. That’s a legal challenge and it requires a serious response.

If No One Opposes

What happens next depends on how you filed.

If you filed on a use-in-commerce basis (1a), your mark goes straight to registration. The USPTO issues your certificate, usually within a few weeks after the opposition period closes. You’re registered.

If you filed on an intent-to-use basis (1b), there’s one more step. You’ll get a Notice of Allowance (NOA), which means the USPTO approved your mark but you still need to prove you’re actually using it in commerce.

You have six months from the NOA to file a Statement of Use with a specimen showing how the mark is being used. Need more time? You can request extensions, up to five additional six-month periods, but each one has a fee.

Registration and Your Certificate

Once everything clears, the USPTO issues your registration certificate. This is when you can start using the ® symbol. Not before.

Registration gives you nationwide priority for the mark in connection with the goods and services in your application. It’s the foundation for any enforcement action you might need to take later.

Registration Doesn’t Mean You’re Done

This catches people off guard. A trademark registration isn’t permanent by default. You have ongoing obligations.

Between years 5 and 6 after registration, you must file a Declaration of Use (Section 8). You can also file a Declaration of Incontestability (Section 15), which strengthens your rights. Miss that window and your registration gets cancelled.

Every 10 years after that, you file a combined Declaration of Use and Renewal (Sections 8 and 9). Miss it, and the registration is gone.

We’ve seen business owners invest in getting registered and then lose it because a maintenance filing slipped through the cracks. One of the most preventable mistakes in trademark law.

Getting approved is a milestone, not the finish line. Pay attention to publication, file your Statement of Use on time if you’re on intent-to-use, and put your maintenance deadlines on the calendar the day your certificate arrives. A trademark only protects you if you maintain it.

Why Snoop Dogg Couldn’t Trademark “Smoke Weed Everyday” – And What It Means for Your Business

Snoop Dogg has spent decades building one of the most recognizable cannabis brands in the world. So when his company tried to trademark the phrase “Smoke Weed Everyday” — a line tied to his image since “The Next Episode” dropped in 2000 — it seemed like a natural move.

The USPTO said no.

The refusal isn’t just a celebrity headline. It’s one of the clearest real-world examples of how trademark law actually works, especially for brands operating in or near the cannabis space. Here’s what happened and what business owners can take away from it.

What Snoop’s Team Applied For

His company, DR ETC HOLDCO LLC, filed a trademark application covering a wide range of goods and services — retail and online cannabis stores, hemp-derived products, edibles like brownies, cookies, and gummies, aromatherapy items, oils, and even goods connected to psychedelic-assisted therapy.

The USPTO issued an Office Action on March 10, 2026, refusing the application on two separate grounds.

Refusal #1: The Phrase Doesn’t Function as a Trademark

A trademark has one job: to tell consumers that a product comes from a specific source. Think Nike, Apple, or Coca-Cola. Those names point to one company.

“Smoke Weed Everyday” doesn’t do that. The USPTO found the phrase already in widespread use across countless unrelated sellers on platforms like Amazon and Redbubble. When a phrase shows up on merchandise from dozens of different sources, consumers don’t read it as a brand — they read it as a cultural expression.

This is different from the classic “ornamental” refusal people often hear about. The issue here was that the phrase had already become too common in public discourse for any one company to claim exclusive rights to it. The USPTO referenced similar rulings involving phrases like “Everybody vs Racism” and “No More RINOs” — both rejected for the same reason.

What makes this particularly tough: the usual workarounds don’t apply. When a phrase fails to function as a trademark, you can’t fix it by arguing it’s acquired distinctiveness, moving to the Supplemental Register, or submitting different specimens. The door is closed.

Refusal #2: Federal Law and the Cannabis Problem

The second refusal is one that trips up cannabis brands constantly, and it doesn’t matter how famous you are.

To register a federal trademark, you have to show lawful use in commerce. If the goods or services in your application violate federal law, the USPTO can’t grant you trademark rights — full stop.

Several products in Snoop’s application, particularly the edibles containing Delta-9 THC, ran into the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDA has not approved cannabis-derived ingredients as safe food additives, which means selling those products across state lines is unlawful under federal law. No lawful use, no trademark.

This is the core tension for anyone building a cannabis brand right now. State laws have moved quickly. Federal law hasn’t. And because the USPTO is a federal agency, it operates by federal rules regardless of what’s happening at the state level.

Is the Application Dead?

Not necessarily. The USPTO actually suggested a path forward.

Snoop’s team could amend the application to remove the goods that trigger federal law issues. They could narrow the description of certain products — for example, specifying that “essential oils” are non-ingestible and cosmetic rather than therapeutic. They could refocus the application on categories that don’t run into FDCA problems at all.

Many cannabis-adjacent brands take exactly this approach. They file trademarks for entertainment, media, apparel, and lifestyle services — categories that are federally lawful and provide real protection for the brand, even if the core cannabis products can’t be registered yet.

That said, the phrase itself remains a harder problem. A phrase this embedded in popular culture is genuinely difficult to claim as a trademark, regardless of how closely it’s associated with one person.

What This Means If You’re Building a Brand

You don’t have to be in the cannabis space for this case to be relevant. There are a few lessons here that apply broadly.

Popular phrases are hard to own. The more a phrase circulates in public culture, the harder it becomes to claim exclusive rights to it. A trademark needs to point to you — not to a cultural moment everyone shares.

What you list in your application matters enormously. One ineligible product can jeopardize an entire filing. Being careful and precise about your goods and services description isn’t just a technicality — it’s strategy.

If you’re in cannabis, a layered approach is your best option. Secure your company name. Protect your logo. File for the non-restricted parts of your brand ecosystem. Monitor the regulatory landscape, because federal law will eventually catch up to reality — and you want to be positioned when it does.

Trademark law moves slower than culture. Snoop Dogg’s situation is really just a clear illustration of that gap. Building a smart brand protection strategy means working within the law as it exists today, not as you’d like it to be.

About Indie Law, A Trademark Law Firm:

Indie Law, A Trademark Law Firm is a trademark firm dedicated to helping small businesses, creative entrepreneurs, and online brands protect and grow their identities. With innovative year-long plans and flat-fee packages, the firm provides accessible legal support to clients across the United States and worldwide. Contact: +1 312-766-6889.

NCAA vs. DraftKings: Where Trademark Enforcement Meets Real-World Marketing

The NCAA’s recent legal move against DraftKings is putting a spotlight on a question many businesses don’t think about. Until it’s too late.

When does referencing a major event cross the line into trademark infringement?

At the heart of this case are phrases most of us toss around every spring without thinking twice: “March Madness.” “Final Four.” “Elite Eight.” “Sweet Sixteen.” These feel like cultural shorthand. But legally, they are federally registered trademarks owned by the NCAA. And now, the organization is asking a federal court for an emergency restraining order, claiming DraftKings used these terms in ways that create a false impression of an official partnership.

DraftKings, on the other hand, is pushing back. The company argues it isn’t using these phrases as trademarks at all. It’s simply using plain language to identify the tournaments its customers are betting on.

So who’s right?

The answer isn’t as simple as it might seem.

Why the NCAA Is Taking Action

From the NCAA’s perspective, this case is about protecting brand identity and preventing consumer confusion.

Trademark law exists to stop businesses from misleading consumers about the source or sponsorship of goods and services. If a user sees “March Madness” embedded in a DraftKings betting menu or promotional graphic, the NCAA argues they might reasonably assume there’s an official relationship between the two.

The NCAA has spent decades building these tournament phrases into some of the most recognizable event branding in sports. The tournament generates significant annual revenue tied directly to licensing and sponsorship deals, much of it built on the exclusivity of those marks.

From that lens, allowing widespread, unlicensed commercial use of its trademarks could weaken both its brand and its business model. Worth noting: other major sportsbooks, including Bet365 and BetRivers, displayed these same tournaments without using the NCAA’s trademarked terms. That detail matters. It suggests the line DraftKings crossed was one that other operators chose not to approach.

DraftKings’ Position and the Real-World Marketing Dilemma

DraftKings’ defense raises a genuinely interesting legal argument.

The company says it isn’t using “March Madness” as a trademark. It’s using it in plain text, the same way it identifies other tournaments like the NIT, simply to tell users which games they can bet on. According to DraftKings, that’s protected speech under the First Amendment and not a trademark violation.

It’s also worth noting that before the lawsuit was filed, DraftKings had already removed some of what the NCAA called the more “egregious” uses of the terms. The company drew its own line. It just drew it differently than the NCAA wanted.

This reflects a broader issue businesses face every day.

How do you talk about a major cultural or sporting event without referencing it by name?

“March Madness” isn’t just a trademark. It’s part of everyday language. Fans, media outlets, and even workplaces use it casually every spring. This raises a key legal concept: nominative fair use.

In plain terms, nominative fair use allows a business to reference a trademarked term if it’s necessary to describe something and doesn’t imply sponsorship. A sports blog can write about “March Madness” without infringing on the NCAA’s trademark.

But things get murkier in commercial contexts.

When a company uses a trademark inside a betting platform or promotional campaign, the risk of implied endorsement increases. Courts often look at factors like:

  • Is the trademark necessary to describe the product or service?
  • Is the brand using more of the trademark than needed?
  • Does the use suggest endorsement or affiliation?

In competitive industries like sports betting, even subtle wording choices can carry legal weight.

What This Means for Business Owners

For business owners, the NCAA vs. DraftKings situation isn’t just a headline. It’s a practical lesson.

If you’re thinking about referencing a major event in your marketing, here are a few grounded takeaways:

1. Context matters more than the words themselves. Using a trademark in a blog post or editorial piece is very different from using it inside a promotion, betting menu, or paid campaign.

2. Ask whether your use implies a relationship. If a customer could reasonably think you’re affiliated with or endorsed by the event organizer, that’s a red flag worth taking seriously.

3. Consider alternatives when possible. Phrases like “college basketball tournament season” aren’t as catchy, but they carry significantly less legal risk. This is why you’ll often see brands say “The Big Game” instead of “Super Bowl.” The NFL has famously pushed back on businesses using “Super Bowl” in ads, and many have quietly adjusted their language as a result.

4. When in doubt, get legal guidance. Trademark disputes can be expensive. A quick review on the front end is almost always cheaper than defending a claim later.

Not sure whether your own marketing crosses any lines? That’s exactly what a Brand Protection Call is for. Book yours here — it’s free.

This case highlights a broader tension in trademark law: balancing brand protection with free and fair commercial speech.

Trademark owners like the NCAA have a legitimate interest in controlling how their marks are used. Without enforcement, trademarks can lose their distinctiveness over time. In extreme cases, they can become so widely used that they lose legal protection altogether.

At the same time, overly aggressive enforcement can create a chilling effect. Businesses may avoid perfectly lawful references simply out of fear of legal action.

This tension isn’t new. Similar disputes have come up around the Olympics, the World Cup, and other high-profile events. In each case, the question is the same: where does legitimate reference end and trademark infringement begin?

Where Courts Typically Land

While every case depends on specific facts, courts generally focus on one central question:

Is the use likely to confuse consumers?

If the answer is yes, or even potentially yes, the trademark owner often has the upper hand.

In cases involving major events, courts tend to be especially protective because the trademarks are widely recognized, licensing markets are well established, and the financial stakes are high.

That said, courts also recognize that not every reference is infringement. Purely informational or editorial uses are often protected, especially when there’s no commercial tie-in. The challenge is that most real-world uses fall somewhere in between.

DraftKings’ First Amendment argument adds another layer. Courts have recognized that businesses have some latitude to use trademarked terms when they’re genuinely descriptive, not decorative. Whether a betting platform qualifies as that kind of descriptive use is exactly the kind of question this case may help answer.

A Case Worth Watching

What makes this dispute compelling is that both sides have legitimate arguments.

The NCAA is protecting a valuable brand built over decades, one that funds a massive ecosystem of college athletics. DraftKings is operating in a space where referencing major sports events is practically unavoidable.

This isn’t a clear-cut case of right versus wrong. It’s a reflection of how modern marketing, language, and intellectual property law intersect and sometimes collide.

As the case unfolds, it may offer more clarity on where courts draw the line. But the takeaway for business owners is worth sitting with right now:

Just because a phrase feels like common language doesn’t mean it’s free to use in your marketing. Especially in a commercial context.

Final Thought

The goal isn’t to make your marketing cautious to the point of being bland. It’s to be intentional.

Understanding the difference between talking about an event and leveraging its brand can make all the difference. Not just legally, but strategically.

Because in today’s landscape, the words you choose don’t just shape your message. They can shape your risk.

If you’re building a brand that matters, protecting it should be part of your strategy from day one. Book a free Brand Protection Call and let’s take a look at where you stand.

 

A Small Designer Beat Katy Perry in a 17-Year Trademark Battle. Here’s What That Means for Your Brand

What would you do if a global pop star’s legal team sent you a cease-and-desist letter — and told you to stop using your own name?

That’s exactly what happened to Katie Perry, an Australian fashion designer who built a clothing brand from the ground up in Sydney. Her brand. Her name. Her business.

When that letter arrived in 2009, she had a choice: back down, or fight.

She fought. And in March 2026, nearly 17 years later, Australia’s highest court ruled in her favor, 3–2, against one of the most famous pop stars in the world.

It sounds like celebrity drama. But for entrepreneurs and business owners? This case is a masterclass in how trademark law actually works — and why registering your brand early might be the most important thing you do for your business.

The Background: Two Perrys, One Name

The dispute centers on two people with nearly identical names:

  • Katy Perry — the global pop star behind hits like Firework and Roar
  • Katie Perry — an Australian fashion designer (born Katie Jane Perry, later known as Katie Taylor) who launched her clothing brand in Sydney in 2007

Same name. Completely different industries. And a legal fight that would take nearly two decades to resolve.

The designer launched “Katie Perry” as a clothing brand first, and registered the trademark. Around the same time, the pop star was breaking out internationally with “I Kissed a Girl.”

The singer had already adopted the stage name Katy Perry. But in Australia, specifically in the clothing industry, the designer had arrived first. That single detail would become the foundation of her case.

Katie Perry (the designer) wasn’t looking for a fight. She was running a small clothing brand in Sydney, the kind of business built on hard work, not headlines.

Then the letter arrived.

In 2009, as the pop star prepared for her first Australian tour, her legal team sent a cease-and-desist demanding the designer stop using the name “Katie Perry” for her clothing line.

The designer refused. She kept selling under the brand name she had already registered — because legally, that name was hers.

For years, the issue stayed unresolved while both sides continued operating. Then, in 2019, the designer went on the offensive, filing a lawsuit alleging that Katy Perry’s merchandise—including clothing sold at Australian concerts—violated her trademark rights.

That lawsuit kicked off the long chain of court battles that would eventually reach Australia’s highest court.

How the Courts Ruled

The case moved through multiple levels of the Australian court system, and the outcome flipped more than once.

2023: The Designer Wins

The Federal Court of Australia ruled that Katy Perry’s merchandise had infringed the designer’s trademark, specifically, clothing sold during Australian tours.

2024: The Singer Wins on Appeal

The victory didn’t last. An appeals court reversed course and ruled in favor of the singer, finding that Katy Perry had established a strong enough reputation in Australia that the designer’s trademark might even be subject to cancellation.

2026: The High Court Has the Final Say

The designer appealed to the High Court of Australia and won, 3–2.

The court found:

  • The designer’s trademark was valid
  • It did not mislead consumers
  • It did not damage the singer’s reputation
  • The singer’s companies had infringed the designer’s registered trademark when selling certain merchandise

Why the Designer Won — And What It Means for You

Here’s where most articles stop at the legal summary. We’re not going to do that because the real value of this case isn’t what happened in court. It’s what it means for your brand, right now.

1. She filed early. You should too.

You’re building something right now. A name, a brand, a reputation. The moment that name starts to matter to you, the moment you’d be devastated to lose it, that’s when you file. Not when you’re bigger. Not when you have more time. Not “eventually.”

Now.

The designer launched her clothing brand in 2007 and registered her trademark shortly after. That single decision gave her legal standing that held up for nearly 17 years against a global pop star with virtually unlimited resources. Early registration is one of the most powerful things you can do for your brand.

2. Filing in the right category matters.

Katy Perry eventually registered her stage name as a trademark in Australia. But not for clothing. Her registrations mainly covered music recordings and entertainment services.

Trademarks are registered by specific categories called “classes.” Clothing is one class. Music is another. Entertainment services are another. If you’re not registered in the right class for your actual business, you have a gap in your protection — and someone else can exploit it.

This is one of the most common mistakes entrepreneurs make when they try to handle trademarks on their own. Getting the classes right from the start is part of what we do for every client.

3. Fame doesn’t win trademark disputes. Registration does.

Let’s be honest: most people assume the celebrity wins these things. Better lawyers, bigger budget, more name recognition. Case closed, right?

Wrong.

Trademark law doesn’t have a fame exception. The High Court ruled that shoppers were unlikely to confuse a small Australian clothing brand with a global pop star, and the designer’s earlier, properly registered trademark was held.

If that doesn’t make you feel a little better about going up against larger competitors in your industry, we don’t know what will.

A True David vs. Goliath Story

The case attracted global attention partly because of the contrast. On one side: a pop star with virtually unlimited legal resources. On the other: a small business owner in Sydney who just wanted to keep her name.

The designer has described the fight as being about more than her brand, but proving that small businesses have real legal rights worth defending.

To be clear: we root for all our clients. But we’d be lying if we said there wasn’t something satisfying about watching a well-filed, well-timed trademark registration hold up for 17 years — against all odds, and all resources.

And if a small clothing designer can defend her trademark against a global pop star and win? Your brand is absolutely worth protecting, too.

Wondering if your brand is protected or at risk? Book a free brand protection consultation with our team. We’ll walk you through exactly where you stand.

What Happens Next in the Case

The High Court ruling settled the core issue, but the case isn’t entirely over. Some remaining questions, including whether the designer waited too long to file her infringement claims, are being sent back to a lower court for further review.

The key outcome stands: the designer keeps her “Katie Perry” clothing trademark.

The Bottom Line

The Katy Perry vs. Katie Perry dispute may read like celebrity gossip. But after nearly two decades of litigation, Australia’s highest court confirmed something trademark attorneys have always known: trademark rights come down to registration, timing, and the right categories. Not fame. Not resources. Not how many people know your name.

Just who filed first and who filed correctly.

Your Brand Deserves Protection Before It Becomes a Battle

Katie Perry, the designer, spent 17 years defending a trademark she filed early and filed correctly. You don’t have to fight that battle. You just have to start before someone else does.

At Indie Law, we’ve helped 1,500+ entrepreneurs protect what they’ve built with a 99.7% success rate and flat-fee pricing so you always know what you’re investing. We handle the search, the filing, and everything in between.

Book your free brand protection consultation today →

Frequently Asked Questions

Does being famous automatically win a trademark dispute?

No, and this case proves it. Trademark law is based on registration, timing, and the specific categories of goods and services involved. Fame and resources can help fund a legal battle, but they can’t override a well-filed, earlier trademark registration.

Do I need a trademark if I’m a small business?

Especially if you’re a small business. Without a registered trademark, you could be forced to rebrand, even if you’ve been using your name for years. A federal trademark registration is what gives you the legal standing to defend your brand.

What are trademark classes, and why do they matter?

Trademarks are registered for specific categories of goods and services called “classes.” Registering in the wrong class, or missing a class you actually operate in, can leave your brand exposed. This is one of the most common filing mistakes, and it’s exactly what a trademark attorney helps you avoid. How long does the trademark process take? The process typically takes 9–12 months minimum, and sometimes longer. The sooner you file, the sooner your rights are established even while the application is still pending.

The Trademark Mistake Even Taylor Swift’s Team Has to Deal With

Even global superstars get rejected.

In August 2025, Taylor Swift’s company, TAS Rights Management LLC, filed trademark applications for the phrase “THE LIFE OF A SHOWGIRL,” connected to her new album. The applications covered a wide range of goods: music recordings, clothing, posters, jewelry, merchandise, and more.

Then the USPTO said no.

Well, not permanently. But they did issue a formal refusal. And that’s actually a perfect teaching moment for every entrepreneur and business owner who thinks filing a trademark is the finish line.

It’s not. It’s the starting line.

What Happened With the “Life of a Showgirl” Application

Swift’s team filed the trademark applications early in a smart, proactive move. Celebrity brands often trademark album names before release to prevent copycats from swooping in on merchandise.

And Swift’s merchandise business is no joke. During The Eras Tour alone, fans spent an average of $40 each on merch, generating roughly $440.8 million in sales. Protecting the name of an album isn’t just a legal formality. It’s a business strategy.

But despite filing early, the USPTO issued what’s called an Office Action, a formal letter from a trademark examiner explaining why an application can’t be approved yet.

The reported reason? Conflicts with existing trademarks.

This doesn’t mean Swift’s trademark is dead. It means her legal team needs to respond, address the examiner’s concerns, and keep the process moving.

Sound familiar? We see this happen with our own clients all the time. A small business owner files their application, gets an Office Action a few months later, and panics thinking it’s over. It’s not. But how you respond matters enormously, and that’s exactly what we’re going to break down here.

What Is a USPTO Office Action, Exactly?

An Office Action is basically the USPTO saying: “We have questions. Come back to us.”

Examiners can flag issues like:

  • Likelihood of confusion with an existing trademark — meaning another brand is similar enough that consumers might get confused
  • Wording that’s too descriptive — for example, trying to trademark “Fresh Cookies” for a bakery probably won’t fly
  • Improper identification of goods or services — the description of what you’re selling needs to match specific USPTO language
  • Missing documentation
  • Problems with your specimen — that’s the proof you’re actually using your mark in business, like a product photo or website screenshot

Once you receive an Office Action, you have six months to respond. If your response addresses the examiner’s concerns, your application moves forward. If not, it can be abandoned.

Here’s the thing most people don’t realize: Office Actions are extremely common. A majority of trademark applications receive at least one rejection during examination. Getting an Office Action doesn’t mean you did something wrong. It means you’re in the process, and the process requires more than just filing paperwork.

Already received an Office Action and not sure what to do next? We handle those.

Why Even Famous Brands Get Refused

Some people assume celebrities or big companies get a free pass. They don’t.

Trademark examiners apply the same legal standards to everyone, whether you’re a small business owner or one of the most famous people on the planet.

Taylor Swift reportedly has over 300 trademark records in the United States alone and more than 400 filings worldwide across at least 16 countries. She’s trademarked album titles, tour names, song lyrics, catchphrases, and yes, even her cats’ names.

And still, her legal team hits roadblocks.

That’s not a failure. That’s just how trademark law works. The USPTO’s job is to protect the marketplace from consumer confusion and duplicate brand names, not to rubber-stamp applications. No matter how big or small you are, the same rules apply.

5 Lessons Your Business Can Take From This

1. Filing a trademark is just the beginning.

Submitting your application is an important first step, but it’s not the end of the road. Trademark examination takes time, and Office Actions are common. What matters is having a plan to respond correctly when they come up. Think of filing as opening the door, not walking through it.

2. A thorough trademark search is non-negotiable.

Before you file, you need to know what’s already out there. A comprehensive search helps identify similar marks, potential conflicts, and legal risks before they become expensive problems. Skipping this step is one of the most common and costly mistakes we see. Learn more about our trademark search process here.

3. Think beyond your business name.

Smart trademark strategy covers more than the name on your business card. Product names, slogans, taglines, event names, merchandise branding, all of it can and often should be protected. Swift’s portfolio is a masterclass in thinking ahead. The businesses we work with that do this well? They’re the ones who never get caught flat-footed.

4. Protect your revenue streams.

Swift filed trademark applications covering everything from clothing to phone accessories because merchandise is part of her business model. When you’re thinking about what to trademark, think about how your brand makes or could make money. Your trademark strategy should protect your income, not just your name.

5. Work with someone who knows what they’re doing.

Office Actions require legal strategy, not just paperwork. Responding correctly means understanding trademark law, crafting strong arguments, and sometimes negotiating directly with examiners. This is where having an experienced trademark attorney in your corner makes a real difference, and it’s where DIY filing services fall completely flat.

The Bottom Line

Taylor Swift’s “Life of a Showgirl” refusal isn’t a failure; it’s a normal part of the trademark process, handled by a team that knows exactly what to do next.

The lesson for your business? Getting a trademark isn’t a one-and-done transaction. It’s a process that requires strategy, experience, and follow-through.

We’ve filed 1,500+ trademarks with a 99.7% success rate. We know how to handle what comes up along the way, and we’ll keep you informed every step of the process.

Your brand is one of your most valuable assets. Protect it like one.

Book your free brand protection consultation and let’s make sure your trademark is handled right from day one.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a USPTO Office Action?

An Office Action is a formal letter from a USPTO trademark examiner explaining why your application can’t be approved yet. It’s not a final rejection; it’s a request to address specific concerns. You have six months to respond.

Does receiving an Office Action mean my trademark is denied?

Not at all. Office Actions are a normal part of the trademark process. Many applications receive at least one. What matters is how and how quickly you respond.

Can a refused trademark still get approved?

Yes. If you respond to the Office Action and address the examiner’s concerns, your application can absolutely move forward toward registration. This is why working with an experienced trademark attorney matters — a strong response can make all the difference.

How long do I have to respond to an Office Action?

You have three months from the date of the Office Action to respond, with the option to request a three-month extension for an additional fee, giving you up to six months total. Missing that deadline means your application will be abandoned.

Should I hire a trademark attorney to respond to an Office Action?

We’d strongly recommend it. Office Action responses require legal knowledge, strategic thinking, and familiarity with USPTO procedures. A poorly written response can hurt your application, and fixing mistakes after the fact often costs more than doing it right the first time.

A Moose, a Beaver, and a Federal Lawsuit: What Buc-ee’s Is Teaching Every Business Owner About Brand Protection

By now, you may have seen the headlines: Buc-ee’s — the beloved Texas-based convenience store chain famous for its immaculate bathrooms and smiling cartoon beaver — is suing an Ohio convenience store called Mickey’s. The reason? Their moose mascot looks too much like Buc-ee’s beaver.

Yes, really.

And before you write it off as two companies squabbling over cartoon animals, hear us out — because this case is a masterclass in why trademarks matter, and what happens when brand protection isn’t treated like the serious business investment it is.

What Actually Happened

Buc-ee’s filed a federal lawsuit in February 2026 against Coles IP Holdings, the company behind Mickey’s convenience stores in Ohio. The suit alleges trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The core argument: Mickey’s cartoon moose — smiling, round-faced, wide-eyed, set against a circular background — looks confusingly similar to Buc-ee’s iconic beaver. Add in Mickey’s heavy use of red across its signage, uniforms, and branding, and Buc-ee’s says the overall effect is likely to make customers think the two chains are connected.

This wasn’t Buc-ee’s first move, either. They’d already filed a petition to cancel Mickey’s trademark registrations with the USPTO back in August 2025. When that didn’t resolve things, they escalated to a federal lawsuit — seeking a permanent injunction, destruction of all Mickey’s branded materials, and treble damages.

Buc-ee’s is not playing around.

Why This Case Is About More Than Two Mascots

Here’s what makes this lawsuit so instructive: a moose and a beaver look nothing alike in real life. But in trademark law, identical isn’t the standard; confusingly similar is.

Courts evaluate trademark disputes by asking one central question: would an average consumer be confused into thinking these two brands are connected? To answer that, they look at things like how similar the marks are overall, whether the businesses operate in the same industry, how strong and well-known the original trademark is, and whether there’s any evidence of actual customer confusion.

Buc-ee’s is arguing that two smiling cartoon animals — both used by convenience stores, both set in circular logos, both leaning heavily on red — are close enough to create that confusion. The logos don’t need to be identical. They just need to be similar enough to muddy the waters. And that’s a lower bar than most people expect.

Why Companies Like Buc-ee’s Enforce So Aggressively

A lot of business owners see trademark enforcement like this and think: why are they being so aggressive over a logo?

Two reasons: value and obligation.

A recognizable mascot isn’t just a cute character. It’s an asset that’s a huge part of their brand. For Buc-ee’s, that beaver is on store signs, billboards, merchandise, food packaging, and millions of social media impressions. That’s years of brand equity built into a single image. Protecting it isn’t aggressive — it’s necessary.

But there’s a legal reason to enforce, too. Trademark protection isn’t automatic, and it isn’t permanent. If a trademark owner consistently fails to challenge similar marks, courts can later find that they effectively abandoned their rights. You have to actively defend your trademark, or risk losing the ground you’ve worked so hard to build.

That’s why you’ll see brands move quickly when they spot a potential infringement. It’s not always about the specific competitor. It’s about protecting the trademark itself.

What This Means for Your Business

You don’t need to be running a multi-state convenience store empire for this case to be relevant. If you have a brand — a name, a logo, a mascot, a slogan — here’s what the Buc-ee’s situation is telling you.

Do a trademark search before you design anything. Mickey’s situation reportedly got worse after a rebrand. Their updated logo ended up more similar to Buc-ee’s than the old one. A proper trademark search before launching or relaunching a brand can surface conflicts before you’ve already printed the signage, built the website, and told the world.

Distinctive beats clever. The more unique your logo or mascot, the stronger your trademark protection. Smiling cartoon animals in circular logos are a crowded design space. The more your brand stands apart visually, the harder it is for anyone to challenge it, and the easier it is for you to challenge someone else if they copy you.

Register your trademark. Without federal registration, your rights are limited to wherever you’re actively using the mark. Registration gives you nationwide protection and the legal standing to enforce it in federal court. It’s not a nice-to-have. It’s the foundation everything else is built on.

Don’t wait for a problem to force your hand. This dispute didn’t come out of nowhere. Buc-ee’s filed a USPTO petition in August 2025 before escalating to a full lawsuit months later. Brand conflicts rarely appear overnight. But if you haven’t registered your trademark, you may not find out about a conflict until it’s already become expensive to deal with.

What Happens Next

The case is still in its early stages. Possible outcomes include a settlement, a court order requiring Mickey’s to rebrand, or a dismissal if the court finds the marks aren’t similar enough to create confusion.

Whatever happens, Mickey’s is in the toughest spot right now, potentially facing a full rebrand, significant legal fees, and the cost of destroying existing branded materials. All because of a logo that looked a little too familiar.

The Bottom Line

A moose and a beaver are different animals. But in the eyes of trademark law, what matters isn’t what the animals are — it’s what consumers see, feel, and remember.

Your brand is one of the most valuable things your business owns. The question worth asking today is whether you’ve done the legal work to actually own it.

Our Latest Blog

Your brand is your most important asset. Dive into Indie Law’s resources to guide you through the maze of trademark law and keep your brand safe from copycats and infringers!

Follow Us

Trademark Blog Categories

Did you know?

Without Trademarks, You Have ZERO Rights To Your Brand.

We’re talking business names, logos, slogans… even podcast titles. Lots of entrepreneurs don’t protect their trademarks until it’s too late.

So we made a short, free video to help you avoid the biggest, most dangerous mistakes that business owners make.

Wanna see it?

UH, YES PLEASE!