On October 2, 2026, a federal judge in Philadelphia refused to throw out a trademark lawsuit that the union representing Starbucks baristas filed against the coffee giant. As Reuters reported, U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson rejected Starbucks’ argument that there was nothing left to fight about, so the case now moves into discovery.
The fight is over the name “Starbucks Workers United” and the union’s logo, a raised fist holding a coffee cup inside a circle, which plays off the famous Starbucks siren. The union wants a court to declare that it can keep using both.
This was an early, procedural ruling. The judge did not decide whether the union’s name or logo infringes Starbucks’ trademarks. But the reason the case is still alive holds a lesson for every small business owner who has ever settled a dispute with a handshake.
How we got here
According to the union’s complaint, baristas began organizing under the Starbucks Workers United name in 2021. In October 2023, Starbucks sent the union a cease and desist letter demanding that it stop using the Starbucks name and logos. Days later, Starbucks sued in federal court in Iowa, and the union filed its own case in Pennsylvania asking a court to rule that it does not infringe.
Then the two sides tried to step back. They signed a memorandum of understanding in 2024, agreed to work things out outside of court, and both cases were dismissed in early 2025. According to the union’s new lawsuit, as reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer, those negotiations fell apart and a settlement was never reached.
So both sides went back to court. The union refiled in Pennsylvania in April 2026. Starbucks refiled its infringement lawsuit in Iowa in June 2026. The same dispute is now running in two federal courts.
Why the judge kept the case alive
Starbucks argued that the 2024 memorandum of understanding had already resolved the dispute, so there was no live controversy for the court to decide when the union sued. Judge Baylson disagreed. He found the union had plausibly alleged a real, ongoing dispute and was entitled to move forward.
Put simply, an agreement to try to work things out did not end the trademark fight. It paused it.
“We’ll work it out” is not a resolution
This is the part that applies far beyond Starbucks. Small business owners do this all the time. Someone sends an angry email about your name. You get on a call, everyone is reasonable, and you agree to “figure something out.” Months pass. Nobody signs anything.
That feels like a resolution. Legally, it often isn’t one. If the conversation stops without a signed agreement that says exactly what each side can do, the original dispute is still sitting there, waiting. And in the meantime, you keep building your brand on top of it.
If you reach a deal over a name or logo, get it in writing, and make it specific:
- What name or logo you can use, and in what form
- Where you can use it, and for which products or services
- Whether there is a deadline, a phase-out period, or a geographic limit
- What happens if either side wants to change the deal later
Depending on the situation, that might be a coexistence agreement, a consent agreement, or a license. If someone else’s brand is involved and they are giving you permission, here is what a trademark licensing agreement should include.
Getting threatened doesn’t mean you just have to wait
The other half of this story is the tool the union used. After Starbucks threatened legal action, the union didn’t wait to be sued. It filed a declaratory judgment action, which asks a court to confirm that what you are doing is legal.
You won’t need that tool in most disputes. It costs money, and it isn’t the right move for every business. But a cease and desist letter usually leaves you with more than two options. You can comply, negotiate, push back, or in some cases ask a court to decide. A trademark attorney can help you figure out which of those makes sense before you respond. The worst move is usually ignoring the letter, a lesson we’ve covered before.
Riffing on a famous brand invites the fight
The union’s logo is a deliberate play on one of the most recognizable logos in the world. The union says its name makes clear it is an organization of workers, not the company. Starbucks says the name and logo could confuse people about who is speaking.
Courts will sort that out. But the setup is familiar. When you borrow the look or name of a famous brand, even to criticize it or poke fun at it, you are inviting a dispute you then have to win. The legal question is whether people are likely to be confused, and likelihood of confusion is decided on the facts, often after a long and expensive fight. Having a good argument is not the same as avoiding the lawsuit.
What to do now
- Clear your name and logo before you launch, especially if it nods to a well-known brand.
- If you get a demand letter, don’t ignore it and don’t answer it alone. Talk to a trademark attorney about all of your options.
- If you make a deal, sign it. Write down what you can use, where, and for how long.
- Treat “let’s work it out” as the beginning, not the end. Until there is a signed agreement, the dispute is still open.
Got a name dispute that never really ended?
If you’ve had a conversation about your brand name that ended with “we’ll figure it out,” or you’re about to launch a logo that plays off a big brand, now is the time to get clarity. Indie Law has filed thousands of trademark applications for entrepreneurs, creators, and small businesses. Book a free consultation, and we’ll walk you through your options in plain English.
Sources: Reuters, “Starbucks loses bid to dismiss labor union’s trademark case,” Oct. 2, 2026 (https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/starbucks-loses-bid-dismiss-labor-unions-trademark-case-2026-10-02/); Bloomberg Law, “Starbucks Loses Bid to Dismiss Union Trademark, Copyright Suit,” Oct. 2, 2026; The Philadelphia Inquirer, “Starbucks worker union files lawsuit in Philadelphia over trademark use,” April 6, 2026; Workers United v. Starbucks Corp., complaint filed April 3, 2026, E.D. Pa. No. 2:26-cv-02202.