...
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
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 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!

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.

Can Two Companies Have the Same Trademark?

Have you ever been super excited about a brilliant company name or trademark idea, only to find out someone else already beat you to it? Can two companies actually own the same trademark? So, before you go into full panic mode, let’s break it down.

Believe it or not, it’s entirely possible for two companies to legally own the exact same trademark. I know it sounds strange, but let me give you an example that’ll clear things up. Think about Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets. They both go by “Delta,” but they’re in completely different industries, right? Delta Airlines helps you travel the skies, while Delta Faucets help you manage your plumbing. No likelihood of confusion there!

That’s the key – if you and the other company are operating in completely unrelated industries, you can indeed coexist with the same trademark. So, don’t hit the panic button just yet if your search turns up a matching trademark.

But, hold on a second, you might ask, what if we’re in the same business? Well, in that case, it’s a bit trickier. Having the exact same trademark in the same industry could lead to some confusion among consumers, and that’s generally a no-go.

So, what can you do if you find yourself in this situation? First, don’t jump to conclusions. Just because someone else has the same trademark doesn’t mean it’s an automatic roadblock. Consider reaching out to them and discussing your concerns. Sometimes, amicable agreements can be reached, like using the same name but in different geographic locations.

If negotiations aren’t an option, you might need to consult with a trademark attorney. They can help you explore your legal options, such as proving that your use of the trademark doesn’t create confusion or seeking a different variation of the name that could work for your business.

In conclusion, yes, it’s absolutely possible for two companies to own the same trademark, as long as they’re in different industries. So, before you let frustration take over, take a deep breath and consider your options.

Are you ready?

Now, if you’re ready to take that important step in safeguarding your brand, don’t hesitate to reach out to Indie Law. We are specialists in trademark law and will handle the entire process for you. If you are unsure – Indie Law has secured over 900 trademarks for brands across the US and is 5* rated on Google with 130+ reviews from satisfied clients! Book a call with our knowledgeable and friendly team today, and we’ll take care of everything, ensuring a smooth and successful trademark journey. So what are you waiting for? Start the process to protect your brand TODAY by giving Indie Law a call. Your brand deserves protection – let Indie Law make it happen!

What the Mahomes-Kelce “1587” Trademark Lawsuit Teaches Every Entrepreneur

You’ve built something real. You’ve got a name, a story, and customers who connect with what you’ve created. But if you haven’t trademarked your brand yet, this headline should stop you cold.

Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce — two of the most recognizable athletes in America — are being sued for trademark infringement over a four-digit number. And the brand doing the suing? A small sneaker company with a powerful origin story and a painful lesson about waiting too long to file.

This isn’t just celebrity drama. It’s a real-world example of exactly what happens when businesses skip the trademark basics. Here’s what went down, why it matters, and what you can do right now to make sure it doesn’t happen to you.

Two Brands, One Number, Two Very Different Stories

The number 1587 carries deep meaning for both sides of this dispute.

1587 Sneakers, Inc. was co-founded by Adam King and Sam Hyun to honor the year Filipino sailors first arrived in what is now the United States, the earliest recorded presence of Asians in America. The brand launched in April 2023, landed on Season 16 of ABC’s Shark Tank in 2024, and built a loyal following rooted in AAPI heritage and cultural identity.

For Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, the math is simpler: jersey #15 plus jersey #87 equals 1587. They partnered with restaurant group Noble 33 to open 1587 Prime, a nearly 10,000-square-foot upscale steakhouse inside the Loews Kansas City Hotel. It opened on September 17, 2025, Mahomes’ 30th birthday, featuring wagyu beef, private dining rooms, and one of Missouri’s largest wine collections.

Two completely unrelated businesses. Two entirely different industries. One identical number. So how did this end up in federal court?

The Trademark Timeline is Everything

Here’s where things get really instructive for entrepreneurs, because the timeline of who did what and when is the entire story.

1587 Sneakers started selling products in commerce in April 2023. That established what trademark attorneys call “first use,” and under federal law, the first business to actually use a mark in commerce can claim common law trademark rights even without a formal registration.

But here’s the costly mistake: 1587 Sneakers didn’t file a federal trademark application until October 2025, more than two and a half years after first use.

In that same window, Mahomes, Kelce, and Noble 33 filed their trademark application for “1587 Prime” in the restaurant category in December 2023, just eight months after the sneaker company started selling. The USPTO registered “1587 Prime Steakhouse” in early February 2026, right before the lawsuit was filed. 1587 Sneakers’ application remains under review.

That gap is the whole story. Two and a half years of building a brand without federal trademark protection is exactly the kind of vulnerability that puts businesses in impossible positions. Without trademarks, you have ZERO rights to your brand at a federal level. Common law rights exist, but they’re limited, harder to enforce, and no match for a registered trademark.

Why This Case Isn’t As Simple As It Looks

You might be thinking: a sneaker company and a steakhouse are completely different. And you’d normally be right. Trademark law allows identical marks to coexist in unrelated industries all the time. Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets. Dove soap and Dove chocolate.

But 1587 Sneakers argues the overlap is bigger than it appears. The lawsuit alleges that 1587 Prime sells branded merchandise, including caps and shirts, some bearing only “1587” without the word “Prime.” That puts the restaurant squarely in apparel territory, directly competing with the sneaker brand’s clothing line. The complaint also notes that the steakhouse serves “Asian-inspired and influenced dishes,” which the plaintiff claims deepens consumer confusion given the brand’s AAPI identity.

Co-founder Adam King stated publicly that the restaurant’s launch caused “significant harm” to his business, pushing it “toward the cliff of collapse.” He says scores of consumers have reached out, believing the two companies are affiliated.

The central legal question is whether consumers are actually likely to confuse a shoe company with a steakhouse. That’s a hard case to make, and the dispute is likely to end in a settlement or coexistence agreement. But either way, the cost in time, money, and stress for a small brand is enormous.

Three Trademark Lessons Every Entrepreneur Needs to Hear

Whether you’re building a sneaker brand or a restaurant concept, this case highlights principles we talk about with clients every single day.

File your trademark application as early as possible. Common law rights from “first use” are real, but they’re geographically limited and far harder to enforce than a federal registration. A registered trademark gives you nationwide priority, a legal presumption of ownership, and the right to use the ® symbol. 1587 Sneakers built a business for over two years without federal protection, and in that window, a much larger, better-funded competitor filed first. Don’t leave that door open.

Think beyond your current product category. Trademarks are registered in specific classes of goods and services. If you sell one thing today but plan to expand into merchandise, apparel, digital products, or services, you should consider filing in those additional classes from the start. The merchandise overlap in this case caught the sneaker company completely off guard. A thorough trademark strategy accounts for where your brand is going, not just where it is right now.

Act fast when you discover a conflict. 1587 Sneakers reportedly sent a cease-and-desist letter before filing suit, which is the right first move. But the longer you wait to assert your rights, the harder enforcement becomes. If you spot a potential infringer, document it and get with a trademark attorney quickly. Time is never on your side in these situations.

The Bottom Line

The Mahomes-Kelce lawsuit is a vivid reminder that trademark protection isn’t just for big companies with deep pockets. It matters most for small businesses and entrepreneurs who can’t afford to litigate against well-funded opponents.

The strongest position you can be in is one where your trademark is registered, your rights are documented, and your brand is protected before anyone else enters the picture. We’ve helped over 1,500 businesses get to exactly that place, with a 99.7% success rate along the way.

If you’re building a brand worth protecting, don’t wait two and a half years to protect it. Book your free brand protection consultation today, and let’s make sure your brand is legally yours.

[Book Your Free Consultation →]

 

Chloe’s Giant Cookies Lawsuit: A Viral Reminder That Your Brand Name Needs Trademark Protection

A cookie brand blows up on TikTok. Orders flood in. Fans rally. And then … legal papers show up.

Chloe Sexton built Chloe’s Giant Cookies when she became pregnant during the pandemic and was fired from her job. Unemployed, her cookie-shipping company allowed her to provide for her newborn son and pay for her mother’s hospice care as she passed away from brain cancer. 

Self-proclaimed as “incredibly successful,” she’s now being dealt a hand of legal paperwork that could completely change the face and future of her company.

That’s the heart of the trending story around Chloe’s Giant Cookies and a Florida business called Chloe’s Cookies, which reportedly claims the names are too close and may cause confusion. The situation went viral after Chloe Sexton posted about the dispute, and other creators (including influencer Jen Hamilton) publicly supported her. (Instagram)

We have all built businesses on our own “why.” What’s yours? 

And what would it look like if that were all taken away from you, because you left out one often-forgotten legal task? 

This is a perfect real-world lesson in trademark law: your name, your logo, and your “brand vibe” are valuable business assets, and the earlier you protect them, the better.

Let’s break down what’s happening and what business owners can learn from it.

What’s The “Chloe’s Cookies” vs. “Chloe’s Giant Cookies” Fight About?

Public reporting says the dispute centers on business names, which typically means trademark issues, not copyright. (This is Memphis)

Here’s what’s been widely reported:

  • Chloe Sexton built Chloe’s Giant Cookies into a major social media-driven brand, selling oversized cookies online.
  • A Fort Myers, Florida business called Chloe’s Cookies is the party challenging the name.
  • Chloe’s post about the dispute reached about 1.4 million views, and sales surged after the story broke. (Fortune Herald)

Here’s the part that surprises a lot of people: viral support does not decide trademark rights. Courts and the USPTO look at evidence: who used the name first, where and how it’s used, and whether customers are likely to be confused. A crowdfunding campaign and a wave of social media love, as powerful as they are, don’t factor in.

The Big Trademark Question: Would Customers Get Confused?

Most brand name disputes come down to one core test: likelihood of confusion.

That’s lawyer-speak for: Would an ordinary customer think these two businesses are connected?

Courts consider things like:

  • How similar the names look and sound
  • Whether the products overlap (cookies vs. cookies — this matters)
  • Where the products are sold (local shop vs. nationwide shipping can still overlap online)
  • Evidence of real confusion — wrong tags, misdirected orders, DMs meant for the other brand
  • How strong the earlier brand is — longer use, and more recognition carries weight

Even adding one word like “Giant” doesn’t automatically solve the problem. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn’t. It depends on the full picture.

Why This Keeps Happening, and Why It’s Getting Harder to Avoid

Trademark disputes aren’t rare. The trademark system is crowded — and getting more crowded every year.

In FY 2024, the USPTO reported 767,138 new trademark application classes filed. (USPTO) That’s a massive volume of brand names competing in the same space. More filings mean more overlap, and more overlap means more conflict.

And when conflict hits, it gets expensive fast. Even “smaller” formal trademark challenges carry real costs in attorney time, filing fees, and preparation — before you’ve even gotten to a hearing. For growing businesses, that’s money that could have gone toward building the brand instead of defending it.

“But it’s My Name!” — a Myth Worth Busting

A lot of business owners assume: “If my business uses my first name, I’m safe.”

Not always.

Trademark law doesn’t give you an automatic pass just because it’s your legal name. You can still face a challenge if the marketplace is likely to be confused, especially if someone else has been using a similar name for similar goods or services.

This is exactly why clearance searches and early filing matter so much.

7 Things Every Small Business Owner Should Take from This Story

1. Don’t pick a name without a real trademark search. A quick Google search isn’t enough. A real search looks at USPTO filings, similar spellings and sound-alikes, common-law use (unregistered brands with an online presence), and industry overlap. Cookies, desserts, food shipping, catering — all of it matters.

2. File early — even before you feel “ready.” You can often file based on intent to use before you fully launch. That stakes your claim while you build. Waiting until you’re established means you could be building on someone else’s legal turf without knowing it.

3. Keep your branding consistent across platforms. If you’re using three slightly different versions of your name across your website, Instagram, and packaging, that inconsistency can weaken your position in a dispute. One name, used clearly and consistently.

4. Save your proof of first use. All of it. Dated product labels, website screenshots, invoices, packaging photos, and early social posts with sales. These feel like housekeeping, but they can become critical evidence if you ever need to prove when you started using your brand.

5. Understand where your real risk sits. The same product and the same channel are where the danger concentrates. If both brands sell cookies and both ship nationally, the likelihood of confusion rises significantly.

6. Know that coexistence agreements exist. Not every dispute has to end in a lawsuit. Sometimes, both parties can agree to different logos, different regions, or different product lines. And they actually document that agreement. Not every case can settle this way, but many can.

7. Build protection beforeyou go viral. Going viral is the dream. It can also paint a target on your brand name if you never legally protect it. When you’re suddenly everywhere, so is your brand name. And anyone who registered something similar just noticed.

What We’d Tell Any Growing Brand Right Now

Trademark protection isn’t a bonus you add after you’ve “made it.” It’s part of building something that lasts.

We typically encourage businesses to think in this order:

  1. Name selection + clearance search — before you commit to anything
  2. Trademark filing strategy — which classes, which version of your mark, name vs. logo
  3. Brand guidelines — so your use stays consistent and defensible
  4. Monitoring + enforcement plan — so small problems don’t grow into expensive ones

Because once a dispute starts, you’re spending time and money in defense mode instead of growth mode.

Final Thought

The Chloe’s Giant Cookies story went viral because it feels personal. Someone builds something from scratch to support themselves and their family, and a name dispute threatens everything they poured themselves into. (Fortune Herald)

But for every growing brand reading this, the takeaway is simple:

A brand name isn’t truly yours until you protect and claim it with a trademark.

In non-legal speak, that means everything you’ve worked so hard to create can come crashing down in a moment if you don’t have the right legal protection.

If you want to run a real clearance search, nail your trademark filing strategy, or just understand where your brand stands right now – so that you can keep your hard work no matter what -that’s exactly what we’re here for. Book a Brand Protection Call and let’s make sure your brand is built on solid legal ground … *before* you end up in a headline.

This article is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice.

Handling Infringement of a Registered Trademark

Handling infringement of a registered trademark starts with identifying unauthorized use quickly and documenting it correctly. Federal registration gives you nationwide exclusive rights, which means enforcement is not optional. It is expected.

When infringement goes unchallenged, confusion spreads, competitors gain traction, and your brand value erodes. Acting early protects your market position and discourages others from testing your boundaries.

This guide walks through how business owners should respond when their registered trademark is being misused.

How to Spot Trademark Infringement Early

Trademark infringement happens when another party uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a mark on related goods or services.

Common warning signs include competitors launching with names or logos that resemble yours, online sellers copying your packaging or branding, and new domain registrations that mirror your trademark. Social media impersonator accounts are another frequent issue, especially for growing brands.

Customer questions about whether a product or account is “yours” are often the clearest signal that confusion already exists. Ongoing monitoring helps catch these problems before they spread.

Documenting Evidence Before Taking Action

Strong enforcement depends on clear evidence.

Start by capturing dated screenshots of infringing websites, ads, product listings, and social profiles. Save customer emails or messages showing confusion. Track changes in sales or traffic that coincide with the infringing activity.

Keep copies of your federal registration certificate and records showing first use. Log any communications with the infringer. Organized documentation turns suspicion into leverage and strengthens every step that follows.

Sending a Cease-and-Desist Letter

Most enforcement actions begin with a cease-and-desist letter.

The letter should clearly identify your registered trademark, explain how it is being infringed, and assert your legal rights. It typically demands immediate cessation of use and destruction of infringing materials, with a firm response deadline, often within two weeks.

Tone matters. Professional, precise letters carry more weight than emotional ones. When a mark is federally registered, many infringers comply quickly to avoid escalation.

Resolving Disputes Without Litigation

Not every case needs to end in court.

Some disputes are resolved through negotiated settlements, licensing arrangements, or coexistence agreements when goods or services do not directly overlap. Clear rebranding timelines, payment terms for past use, and written assurances are essential.

Attorneys structure these agreements to prevent future disputes and close the door on related claims. When handled correctly, settlement preserves resources without compromising brand control.

When Litigation Becomes Necessary

If an infringer refuses to comply, filing suit in federal court may be the next step.

Registered trademarks simplify enforcement. Courts recognize nationwide ownership, making it easier to obtain injunctions that stop use immediately. Claims can include lost profits, the infringer’s gains, and enhanced damages for willful violations. Attorney fees may also be recoverable.

Judges often move quickly when consumer confusion threatens ongoing harm. Successful enforcement strengthens your trademark portfolio and sends a clear message to the market.

Why Registration Matters in Enforcement

Federal registration provides tools that unregistered marks simply do not have.

It creates public notice of your rights, shifts burdens in disputes, and applies nationwide. It allows you to challenge bad-faith filings, stop counterfeit imports through customs, and pursue statutory damages in appropriate cases.

These advantages make enforcement faster, cleaner, and more predictable.

Preventing Repeat Infringement

Trademark enforcement is not a one-time task.

Regular portfolio reviews help identify gaps as your business expands. Monitoring domains, marketplaces, and social platforms reduces response time. Teams should know how to flag suspicious activity internally.

Timely renewals and filings for updated logos or brand extensions keep protection current. A history of consistent enforcement discourages copycats from trying again.

What Brand Owners Should Know

Trademark infringement requires speed, documentation, and strategic pressure. Registered trademarks give business owners the authority to act decisively and protect what they have built.

If your trademark is being infringed, waiting rarely improves the outcome.

Ready to Enforce Your Trademark Rights?

Schedule your free virtual consultation with Indie Law: https://www.indielaw.com/call/ 

All consultations are virtual, with no in-person meetings required.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need guidance specific to your situation, the Indie Law team is here to help.

Text reads: "A small designer beat Katy Perry in a 17-year Trademark Battle. Here's what that means for your brand." Indie Law logo on left, blue geometric background.

Content

    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.

    When the Legal Battle Began

    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.

    Ready to Talk Through Your Trademark Questions?

    Get clear, friendly guidance so you can protect your brand with confidence.

    Book a Call

    Our RECENT blog

    Follow Us

    Trademark Blog Categories

    Test

    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
    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 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!

    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.

    Can Two Companies Have the Same Trademark?

    Have you ever been super excited about a brilliant company name or trademark idea, only to find out someone else already beat you to it? Can two companies actually own the same trademark? So, before you go into full panic mode, let’s break it down.

    Believe it or not, it’s entirely possible for two companies to legally own the exact same trademark. I know it sounds strange, but let me give you an example that’ll clear things up. Think about Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets. They both go by “Delta,” but they’re in completely different industries, right? Delta Airlines helps you travel the skies, while Delta Faucets help you manage your plumbing. No likelihood of confusion there!

    That’s the key – if you and the other company are operating in completely unrelated industries, you can indeed coexist with the same trademark. So, don’t hit the panic button just yet if your search turns up a matching trademark.

    But, hold on a second, you might ask, what if we’re in the same business? Well, in that case, it’s a bit trickier. Having the exact same trademark in the same industry could lead to some confusion among consumers, and that’s generally a no-go.

    So, what can you do if you find yourself in this situation? First, don’t jump to conclusions. Just because someone else has the same trademark doesn’t mean it’s an automatic roadblock. Consider reaching out to them and discussing your concerns. Sometimes, amicable agreements can be reached, like using the same name but in different geographic locations.

    If negotiations aren’t an option, you might need to consult with a trademark attorney. They can help you explore your legal options, such as proving that your use of the trademark doesn’t create confusion or seeking a different variation of the name that could work for your business.

    In conclusion, yes, it’s absolutely possible for two companies to own the same trademark, as long as they’re in different industries. So, before you let frustration take over, take a deep breath and consider your options.

    Are you ready?

    Now, if you’re ready to take that important step in safeguarding your brand, don’t hesitate to reach out to Indie Law. We are specialists in trademark law and will handle the entire process for you. If you are unsure – Indie Law has secured over 900 trademarks for brands across the US and is 5* rated on Google with 130+ reviews from satisfied clients! Book a call with our knowledgeable and friendly team today, and we’ll take care of everything, ensuring a smooth and successful trademark journey. So what are you waiting for? Start the process to protect your brand TODAY by giving Indie Law a call. Your brand deserves protection – let Indie Law make it happen!

    What the Mahomes-Kelce “1587” Trademark Lawsuit Teaches Every Entrepreneur

    You’ve built something real. You’ve got a name, a story, and customers who connect with what you’ve created. But if you haven’t trademarked your brand yet, this headline should stop you cold.

    Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce — two of the most recognizable athletes in America — are being sued for trademark infringement over a four-digit number. And the brand doing the suing? A small sneaker company with a powerful origin story and a painful lesson about waiting too long to file.

    This isn’t just celebrity drama. It’s a real-world example of exactly what happens when businesses skip the trademark basics. Here’s what went down, why it matters, and what you can do right now to make sure it doesn’t happen to you.

    Two Brands, One Number, Two Very Different Stories

    The number 1587 carries deep meaning for both sides of this dispute.

    1587 Sneakers, Inc. was co-founded by Adam King and Sam Hyun to honor the year Filipino sailors first arrived in what is now the United States, the earliest recorded presence of Asians in America. The brand launched in April 2023, landed on Season 16 of ABC’s Shark Tank in 2024, and built a loyal following rooted in AAPI heritage and cultural identity.

    For Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, the math is simpler: jersey #15 plus jersey #87 equals 1587. They partnered with restaurant group Noble 33 to open 1587 Prime, a nearly 10,000-square-foot upscale steakhouse inside the Loews Kansas City Hotel. It opened on September 17, 2025, Mahomes’ 30th birthday, featuring wagyu beef, private dining rooms, and one of Missouri’s largest wine collections.

    Two completely unrelated businesses. Two entirely different industries. One identical number. So how did this end up in federal court?

    The Trademark Timeline is Everything

    Here’s where things get really instructive for entrepreneurs, because the timeline of who did what and when is the entire story.

    1587 Sneakers started selling products in commerce in April 2023. That established what trademark attorneys call “first use,” and under federal law, the first business to actually use a mark in commerce can claim common law trademark rights even without a formal registration.

    But here’s the costly mistake: 1587 Sneakers didn’t file a federal trademark application until October 2025, more than two and a half years after first use.

    In that same window, Mahomes, Kelce, and Noble 33 filed their trademark application for “1587 Prime” in the restaurant category in December 2023, just eight months after the sneaker company started selling. The USPTO registered “1587 Prime Steakhouse” in early February 2026, right before the lawsuit was filed. 1587 Sneakers’ application remains under review.

    That gap is the whole story. Two and a half years of building a brand without federal trademark protection is exactly the kind of vulnerability that puts businesses in impossible positions. Without trademarks, you have ZERO rights to your brand at a federal level. Common law rights exist, but they’re limited, harder to enforce, and no match for a registered trademark.

    Why This Case Isn’t As Simple As It Looks

    You might be thinking: a sneaker company and a steakhouse are completely different. And you’d normally be right. Trademark law allows identical marks to coexist in unrelated industries all the time. Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets. Dove soap and Dove chocolate.

    But 1587 Sneakers argues the overlap is bigger than it appears. The lawsuit alleges that 1587 Prime sells branded merchandise, including caps and shirts, some bearing only “1587” without the word “Prime.” That puts the restaurant squarely in apparel territory, directly competing with the sneaker brand’s clothing line. The complaint also notes that the steakhouse serves “Asian-inspired and influenced dishes,” which the plaintiff claims deepens consumer confusion given the brand’s AAPI identity.

    Co-founder Adam King stated publicly that the restaurant’s launch caused “significant harm” to his business, pushing it “toward the cliff of collapse.” He says scores of consumers have reached out, believing the two companies are affiliated.

    The central legal question is whether consumers are actually likely to confuse a shoe company with a steakhouse. That’s a hard case to make, and the dispute is likely to end in a settlement or coexistence agreement. But either way, the cost in time, money, and stress for a small brand is enormous.

    Three Trademark Lessons Every Entrepreneur Needs to Hear

    Whether you’re building a sneaker brand or a restaurant concept, this case highlights principles we talk about with clients every single day.

    File your trademark application as early as possible. Common law rights from “first use” are real, but they’re geographically limited and far harder to enforce than a federal registration. A registered trademark gives you nationwide priority, a legal presumption of ownership, and the right to use the ® symbol. 1587 Sneakers built a business for over two years without federal protection, and in that window, a much larger, better-funded competitor filed first. Don’t leave that door open.

    Think beyond your current product category. Trademarks are registered in specific classes of goods and services. If you sell one thing today but plan to expand into merchandise, apparel, digital products, or services, you should consider filing in those additional classes from the start. The merchandise overlap in this case caught the sneaker company completely off guard. A thorough trademark strategy accounts for where your brand is going, not just where it is right now.

    Act fast when you discover a conflict. 1587 Sneakers reportedly sent a cease-and-desist letter before filing suit, which is the right first move. But the longer you wait to assert your rights, the harder enforcement becomes. If you spot a potential infringer, document it and get with a trademark attorney quickly. Time is never on your side in these situations.

    The Bottom Line

    The Mahomes-Kelce lawsuit is a vivid reminder that trademark protection isn’t just for big companies with deep pockets. It matters most for small businesses and entrepreneurs who can’t afford to litigate against well-funded opponents.

    The strongest position you can be in is one where your trademark is registered, your rights are documented, and your brand is protected before anyone else enters the picture. We’ve helped over 1,500 businesses get to exactly that place, with a 99.7% success rate along the way.

    If you’re building a brand worth protecting, don’t wait two and a half years to protect it. Book your free brand protection consultation today, and let’s make sure your brand is legally yours.

    [Book Your Free Consultation →]

     

    Chloe’s Giant Cookies Lawsuit: A Viral Reminder That Your Brand Name Needs Trademark Protection

    A cookie brand blows up on TikTok. Orders flood in. Fans rally. And then … legal papers show up.

    Chloe Sexton built Chloe’s Giant Cookies when she became pregnant during the pandemic and was fired from her job. Unemployed, her cookie-shipping company allowed her to provide for her newborn son and pay for her mother’s hospice care as she passed away from brain cancer. 

    Self-proclaimed as “incredibly successful,” she’s now being dealt a hand of legal paperwork that could completely change the face and future of her company.

    That’s the heart of the trending story around Chloe’s Giant Cookies and a Florida business called Chloe’s Cookies, which reportedly claims the names are too close and may cause confusion. The situation went viral after Chloe Sexton posted about the dispute, and other creators (including influencer Jen Hamilton) publicly supported her. (Instagram)

    We have all built businesses on our own “why.” What’s yours? 

    And what would it look like if that were all taken away from you, because you left out one often-forgotten legal task? 

    This is a perfect real-world lesson in trademark law: your name, your logo, and your “brand vibe” are valuable business assets, and the earlier you protect them, the better.

    Let’s break down what’s happening and what business owners can learn from it.

    What’s The “Chloe’s Cookies” vs. “Chloe’s Giant Cookies” Fight About?

    Public reporting says the dispute centers on business names, which typically means trademark issues, not copyright. (This is Memphis)

    Here’s what’s been widely reported:

    • Chloe Sexton built Chloe’s Giant Cookies into a major social media-driven brand, selling oversized cookies online.
    • A Fort Myers, Florida business called Chloe’s Cookies is the party challenging the name.
    • Chloe’s post about the dispute reached about 1.4 million views, and sales surged after the story broke. (Fortune Herald)

    Here’s the part that surprises a lot of people: viral support does not decide trademark rights. Courts and the USPTO look at evidence: who used the name first, where and how it’s used, and whether customers are likely to be confused. A crowdfunding campaign and a wave of social media love, as powerful as they are, don’t factor in.

    The Big Trademark Question: Would Customers Get Confused?

    Most brand name disputes come down to one core test: likelihood of confusion.

    That’s lawyer-speak for: Would an ordinary customer think these two businesses are connected?

    Courts consider things like:

    • How similar the names look and sound
    • Whether the products overlap (cookies vs. cookies — this matters)
    • Where the products are sold (local shop vs. nationwide shipping can still overlap online)
    • Evidence of real confusion — wrong tags, misdirected orders, DMs meant for the other brand
    • How strong the earlier brand is — longer use, and more recognition carries weight

    Even adding one word like “Giant” doesn’t automatically solve the problem. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn’t. It depends on the full picture.

    Why This Keeps Happening, and Why It’s Getting Harder to Avoid

    Trademark disputes aren’t rare. The trademark system is crowded — and getting more crowded every year.

    In FY 2024, the USPTO reported 767,138 new trademark application classes filed. (USPTO) That’s a massive volume of brand names competing in the same space. More filings mean more overlap, and more overlap means more conflict.

    And when conflict hits, it gets expensive fast. Even “smaller” formal trademark challenges carry real costs in attorney time, filing fees, and preparation — before you’ve even gotten to a hearing. For growing businesses, that’s money that could have gone toward building the brand instead of defending it.

    “But it’s My Name!” — a Myth Worth Busting

    A lot of business owners assume: “If my business uses my first name, I’m safe.”

    Not always.

    Trademark law doesn’t give you an automatic pass just because it’s your legal name. You can still face a challenge if the marketplace is likely to be confused, especially if someone else has been using a similar name for similar goods or services.

    This is exactly why clearance searches and early filing matter so much.

    7 Things Every Small Business Owner Should Take from This Story

    1. Don’t pick a name without a real trademark search. A quick Google search isn’t enough. A real search looks at USPTO filings, similar spellings and sound-alikes, common-law use (unregistered brands with an online presence), and industry overlap. Cookies, desserts, food shipping, catering — all of it matters.

    2. File early — even before you feel “ready.” You can often file based on intent to use before you fully launch. That stakes your claim while you build. Waiting until you’re established means you could be building on someone else’s legal turf without knowing it.

    3. Keep your branding consistent across platforms. If you’re using three slightly different versions of your name across your website, Instagram, and packaging, that inconsistency can weaken your position in a dispute. One name, used clearly and consistently.

    4. Save your proof of first use. All of it. Dated product labels, website screenshots, invoices, packaging photos, and early social posts with sales. These feel like housekeeping, but they can become critical evidence if you ever need to prove when you started using your brand.

    5. Understand where your real risk sits. The same product and the same channel are where the danger concentrates. If both brands sell cookies and both ship nationally, the likelihood of confusion rises significantly.

    6. Know that coexistence agreements exist. Not every dispute has to end in a lawsuit. Sometimes, both parties can agree to different logos, different regions, or different product lines. And they actually document that agreement. Not every case can settle this way, but many can.

    7. Build protection beforeyou go viral. Going viral is the dream. It can also paint a target on your brand name if you never legally protect it. When you’re suddenly everywhere, so is your brand name. And anyone who registered something similar just noticed.

    What We’d Tell Any Growing Brand Right Now

    Trademark protection isn’t a bonus you add after you’ve “made it.” It’s part of building something that lasts.

    We typically encourage businesses to think in this order:

    1. Name selection + clearance search — before you commit to anything
    2. Trademark filing strategy — which classes, which version of your mark, name vs. logo
    3. Brand guidelines — so your use stays consistent and defensible
    4. Monitoring + enforcement plan — so small problems don’t grow into expensive ones

    Because once a dispute starts, you’re spending time and money in defense mode instead of growth mode.

    Final Thought

    The Chloe’s Giant Cookies story went viral because it feels personal. Someone builds something from scratch to support themselves and their family, and a name dispute threatens everything they poured themselves into. (Fortune Herald)

    But for every growing brand reading this, the takeaway is simple:

    A brand name isn’t truly yours until you protect and claim it with a trademark.

    In non-legal speak, that means everything you’ve worked so hard to create can come crashing down in a moment if you don’t have the right legal protection.

    If you want to run a real clearance search, nail your trademark filing strategy, or just understand where your brand stands right now – so that you can keep your hard work no matter what -that’s exactly what we’re here for. Book a Brand Protection Call and let’s make sure your brand is built on solid legal ground … *before* you end up in a headline.

    This article is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice.

    Handling Infringement of a Registered Trademark

    Text reads: "A small designer beat Katy Perry in a 17-year Trademark Battle. Here's what that means for your brand." Indie Law logo on left, blue geometric background.

    Content

      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.

      When the Legal Battle Began

      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.

      Ready to Talk Through Your Trademark Questions?

      Get clear, friendly guidance so you can protect your brand with confidence.

      Book a Call

      Our RECENT blog

      Follow Us

      Trademark Blog Categories

      Test

      Ready to Talk Through Your Trademark Questions?

      Get clear, friendly guidance so you can protect your brand with confidence.

      Book a Call

      Our RECENT blog

      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

      Ready to Talk Through Your Trademark Questions?

      Get clear, friendly guidance so you can protect your brand with confidence.

      Book a Call

      Our RECENT blog

      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