Imagine spending five years building a successful podcast brand around your own first name, only to have a toy company tell you that you can’t register it as a trademark. That’s exactly what’s happening to a DC podcaster in a legal battle that raises questions about corporate trademark power, common personal names, and how far dilution claims can really stretch.
When a Podcast Name Becomes a Trademark Battle
Ken Biberaj launched “Coffee with Ken” in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a commercial real estate agent in Northern Virginia, he created a policy-focused interview series featuring Maryland Governor Wes Moore, historian Jon Meacham, and other prominent figures.
After five years of successful operation, Biberaj filed a trademark application with the USPTO in late 2024. He received preliminary approval by early 2025. Then in May 2025, Mattel filed a formal opposition claiming that “Coffee with Ken” would “dilute the distinctive qualities” of their Ken doll trademark. Mattel referenced their “Barista Ken” doll as a potential source of confusion.
Biberaj’s response was direct: “I don’t think anyone’s ever logged on to ‘Coffee with Ken’ and thought that a barista doll or Ryan Gosling was gonna be on the other side.” He notes his podcast predates the 2023 Barbie movie and traces the name format back over a decade to his New York City Council campaign.
The application remains suspended while negotiations proceed. Mattel’s next response is due October 2025.
Why Mattel’s Dilution Claim Faces Serious Legal Hurdles
Trademark dilution works very differently from trademark infringement. Dilution doesn’t require any showing of confusion or competition. Instead, it protects against uses that weaken a famous mark’s distinctiveness.
Here’s the catch. Dilution protection is reserved exclusively for “famous” marks. Not well-known marks. Famous marks. We’re talking household names like GOOGLE, COCA-COLA, or NIKE.
For Mattel to prevail, they must prove that “Ken” by itself has achieved this level of fame. Not the Ken doll as part of the Barbie universe. Just Ken, standing alone as an independently famous trademark.
Look at how Mattel itself has treated these marks. They hold more than 30 separate trademark registrations for “Barbie” covering an enormous range of goods and services. For “Ken”? Only three registrations, all filed decades ago, primarily for toys.
Courts look at six specific factors under the dilution statute when evaluating blurring claims. The Ken doll is certainly an important character in the Barbie universe. But has Ken achieved household name status independent of Barbie? That’s what Mattel needs to prove.
Then you have the market separation issue. Biberaj hosts a political podcast featuring policy discussions with governors and historians. Mattel manufactures toy dolls. These are vastly different products serving completely different audiences.
The dilution standard represents one of the highest bars in trademark law. Mattel has significant challenges ahead.
The Legal Tangle of Trademarking Common First Names
Ken ranks among the most common male names in America. Hundreds of thousands of men are named Ken. The law has long recognized that common first names make weak trademarks.
Take the Katie Perry case. An Australian fashion designer named Katie Perry had been selling clothing under her own birth name for years. When pop star Katy Perry sold merchandise during her 2014 Australian tour, the designer sued and won. Despite the pop star’s massive fame, she infringed on the designer’s prior trademark rights.
That mattered.
Or consider Joseph Abboud. After selling his fashion company for $65.5 million, the sale included trademarks bearing his name. When he later tried to launch a new fashion line using his own name, the buyer sued him. The court found that by selling those trademark rights, Abboud had essentially sold his right to use his own name commercially in that industry.
The George Sink Injury Lawyers firm in South Carolina went after the founder’s son, George Sink Jr., when he started a competing practice under his legal name. That case settled favorably for the firm.
These cases all point to one problem: what happens when personal names become valuable commercial assets? Should people have the right to use their own names? Absolutely. But when that name has generated millions in revenue for a company, the answer gets complicated.
If Mattel succeeds here, think about the ripple effects. Could they challenge every podcaster or content creator named Ken who wants to build a brand around their own name?
Critical Lessons for Podcasters and Content Creators
The biggest mistake Biberaj made? Timing. He filed for trademark protection after five years of building his brand. That’s exactly when you have the most to lose.
I always emphasize this point: search before you launch, not after. The thorough search I conduct for clients examines federal databases, all 50 state databases, common law uses, and internet databases. It costs money upfront. But compare that to what you’ll spend on rebranding or legal battles five years later.
Here’s what many people don’t realize. Getting preliminary approval from the USPTO isn’t the finish line. Your application gets published, which opens a 30-day window where anyone can oppose your registration. Companies use specialized monitoring tools to track these publications. (This process is part of why trademarks can take up to a year and a half or more to be fully registered.)
Once an opposition hits, you face hard questions. How strong is the opposing party’s claim? How much have you invested in your brand? Can you afford to fight, or does rebranding make more economic sense?
Even if you’re legally correct, you need the budget to prove it.
Biberaj took an interesting approach by going public with his story. That David versus Goliath narrative can influence settlement negotiations. When the larger company starts looking like a bully, they may become more willing to reach an accommodation.
One tactical point: the USPTO divides goods and services into 45 different classes. Toys fall into Class 28. Podcasts typically fall into Class 41. If Mattel’s Ken registrations don’t cover entertainment services, that strengthens Biberaj’s position.
The bottom line? Protect your brand before you’ve built equity in it, not after.
How I Defend Clients Against Trademark Opposition Proceedings
When a client calls me after receiving a notice of opposition, I know exactly what they’re feeling. It’s intimidating. A major company is formally challenging your trademark application.
My first step is detailed assessment. I need to understand the opponent’s specific grounds, evaluate the strength of your position, and give you realistic expectations about costs and timeline. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board operates under its own procedural rules, not regular court procedures.
During opposition proceedings, we go through discovery. That means document requests, interrogatories, and sometimes depositions. I gather evidence showing how your mark is actually used in commerce and prove the differences between your business and the opponent’s business.
The majority of oppositions settle before reaching a hearing. Both parties have incentives to reach agreement. I help clients navigate the key decisions involved in settlement. Sometimes a coexistence agreement makes sense. Sometimes we modify the application slightly. Other times, you need to prepare for a hearing.
A straightforward opposition defense might run $5,000 to $15,000 in legal fees. Complex cases requiring extensive discovery and hearing preparation can run $20,000 to $50,000 or more.
I personally handle every opposition case in my practice. When you’re facing a company like Mattel, you need someone with deep experience in TTAB procedures who can negotiate effectively with opposing counsel.
My philosophy is simple: build the strongest possible case based on the facts and law, negotiate from knowledge and confidence, and make decisions based on your business interests.
Protect Your Brand Before Someone Else Does
As of October 2025, the Mattel versus Biberaj case remains in active proceedings. I expect this case will settle rather than go to a full hearing. The economics push both parties toward negotiation.
But this case matters beyond Ken Biberaj. More podcasters, YouTubers, and digital entrepreneurs are building substantial brands around personal names. These brands deserve protection. At the same time, established companies are monitoring for potential conflicts using specialized tools to track new trademark applications.
This collision between digital creators and traditional trademark holders will only intensify.
The creators who succeed are the ones who think about legal protection before they need it. They search before they launch. They file before they’ve built years of equity.
I offer free consultations to discuss trademark clearance or opposition defense. When you contact my office, we talk about your brand, your business model, and your growth plans. I explain the process in plain English and give you a realistic assessment of registration prospects and costs.
If you’re already facing an opposition, we evaluate your options together. Fight or settle? What does each path actually cost? I don’t pressure clients toward expensive litigation if settlement makes more business sense.
Here’s the truth: Biberaj is spending significant time, money, and energy defending his right to use his own name for his own podcast. The small investment in proper trademark clearance early on would have prevented all of this.
Contact my office today to schedule a free consultation. Let’s make sure your brand name is clear before you invest years building equity in it. Let’s get your trademark application filed while you’re still in the early stages.
Because once you’re in someone’s crosshairs, everything gets more expensive and complicated.
