Jarrad Hewett’s Oklahoma underwear company just had its most profitable month after three years of building his brand around a cartoon squirrel holding acorns. Weeks later, Texas-based Buc-ee’s sent him a three-page cease and desist letter demanding he abandon the logo, stop using the colors red, yellow, and brown, eliminate all cartoon rodents from his marketing, and only use front-facing character images. Hewett offered to compromise by dropping certain colors and side-profile images. Buc-ee’s responded by demanding everything else. Now the small business owner faces a choice: capitulate to demands from a company with 15 TTAB oppositions and 11 infringement lawsuits since 2007, or defend his registered trademark against claims that his squirrel infringes their beaver.
What Buc-ee’s Demanded and Why Nut Huggers Is Fighting
Nut Huggers Apparel built a three-year business around patented underwear designs for active people. Hewett created a cartoon squirrel holding two acorns as his logo. The visual connected to his brand name. Buc-ee’s legal demand arrived during his strongest sales period.
Trent Menning, assistant general counsel for Buc-ee’s, sent Hewett a three-page letter in November 2025 stating that “Nut Huggers is presently using a cartoon brown rodent character, smiling with buck teeth, in various depictions.” Buc-ee’s demanded Hewett stop using cartoon rodents entirely, eliminate red, yellow, and brown from his branding, remove baseball hats from marketing imagery, and restrict all character depictions to front-facing images only.
Hewett attempted negotiation. He offered to drop specific colors and eliminate side-profile versions of his squirrel. Buc-ee’s rejected the compromise. “They came back and basically said, ‘Great, now that you’ve given us this, we want everything else,'” Hewett told local media.
Hewett holds a registered trademark for his squirrel logo. He maintains there’s no infringement. His decision to fight protects a brand he built into profitability over three years. The alternative means costly rebranding that erases customer recognition, expensive litigation, or complete capitulation that would fundamentally alter his brand identity.
How Courts Distinguish Similar Animal Mascots
Trademark infringement turns on likelihood of confusion. Courts ask whether an average consumer might mistake one mark for another or believe the marks come from related sources. Creating confusion isn’t the test. Creating the likelihood someone could be confused is enough.
When I prepare analyses for disputes involving design marks like cartoon mascots, courts weigh several factors together. Strength of the plaintiff’s mark matters first. Buc-ee’s registered its beaver in 2007 and enforced it through 15 TTAB oppositions and 11 federal lawsuits. That history strengthens its legal position.
Visual similarity gets examined, but consumers don’t compare marks side by side. They rely on general recollection. Both marks use cartoon rodents with prominent buck teeth. That creates surface similarity. The animals differ. Beavers versus squirrels. The squirrel holds acorns. Buc-ee’s beaver doesn’t. Color schemes vary outside the red-yellow-brown spectrum Buc-ee’s wants eliminated. This analysis requires conducting a professional trademark search that examines visual design elements, not just word marks.
Relatedness of goods creates the commercial proximity question. Both marks appear on apparel. Buc-ee’s operates convenience stores and gas stations across Texas and neighboring states. Nut Huggers sells patented underwear targeting active customers. Channels overlap in apparel but diverge in primary business models.
Marketing channels affect analysis. Buc-ee’s sells logo merchandise at stores and online. Nut Huggers sells specialized athletic underwear online and through retail partnerships. Customers shopping for gas station merchandise might not overlap with those seeking performance underwear, but both marks reach consumers through apparel.
Intent carries weight. Hewett created his squirrel logo to match his “Nut Huggers” brand name through acorn imagery. He secured federal trademark registration. USPTO review didn’t flag Buc-ee’s beaver as blocking. His independent creation and registration cut against intentional copying claims.
No single factor controls. Courts weigh everything together. Strong marks get broader protection. Identical goods in identical channels face heavier scrutiny than divergent business models. Visual similarity alone doesn’t prove infringement when other factors point toward distinct brands serving different markets.
Why Major Brands Sue Small Competitors Over Design Elements
Buc-ee’s filed 15 TTAB oppositions and 11 federal lawsuits since 2007. That pattern reflects strategy, not isolated disputes.
Recent 2025 targets included Born United, a South Carolina clothing company selling military-themed beaver apparel across six states. Prometheus Esoterica, an Orlando gothic boutique, sold t-shirts and decals with beaver imagery. Duckees, a Missouri liquor store, used a cartoon duck in a yellow circle. Barc-ee’s faced similar allegations.
Most disputes settle. Defendants modify or remove logos rather than finance federal litigation. That pattern incentivizes aggressive enforcement. Send cease and desist letters to dozens of businesses. Most comply. A few fight. Even fighters often settle after spending thousands on legal fees.
Each lawsuit stacks the same claims: confusingly similar graphics, trademark infringement, unfair competition, counterfeiting, unjust enrichment, false designation of origin. The theories require expensive defense even when infringement seems questionable.
Trademark law creates policing obligations. Owners who ignore infringement risk weakening their marks through acquiescence. Courts can find that failure to enforce against some infringers prevents enforcement against others. That principle drives continuous monitoring.
The business rationale extends beyond legal duty. Buc-ee’s wants to control cartoon rodent imagery in convenience retail and related merchandise. Letting competitors use beaver logos creates confusion. Letting them use other rodents creates category dilution. The strategy owns not just beavers but cartoon animals generally within their commercial sphere. Federal registration can take up to 18 months or longer, giving first movers substantial advantages.
Cost asymmetry favors plaintiffs. Buc-ee’s maintains in-house counsel and finances litigation from substantial revenue. Small businesses face immediate pressure. Defense costs reach tens of thousands before discovery begins. Economics often force settlement regardless of legal merits.
Cease and desist letters function as tests. They separate businesses with resources from those who capitulate under pressure. Buc-ee’s rejection of Hewett’s compromise follows this pattern. Accept partial concessions, demand total surrender. The escalation reveals who will fight.
Clearance Searches Before Launch Prevent Cease and Desist Letters
Trademark conflicts resolve cheapest before launch. Professional searches identify blocking marks while design changes cost hours, not thousands. Search first, design second, file third, then launch.
Search scope for mascot marks covers registered trademarks, pending applications, state registrations, and common law uses. Design mark databases require image searches, not just word searches. A squirrel mark won’t appear in text searches for “rodent.” The USPTO database supports visual searching, but effective clearance examines multiple sources including industry-specific monitoring services.
Cost comparison justifies early investment. USPTO fees run $225 to $600 per class. Attorney fees for search and application add several hundred to a few thousand dollars. Compare that to rebranding after receiving a cease and desist. New logo design, packaging, marketing materials, website graphics, social media assets, and customer explanations. Those costs reach tens of thousands for small businesses. Understanding the cost to trademark a name helps businesses budget from the start.
Design differentiation reduces risk near established marks. Choose different animal species. Use different visual styles: realistic versus cartoon, geometric versus organic, minimalist versus detailed. Adopt different color palettes. Position marks in different commercial contexts so goods push toward distinct markets.
Registration priority creates defensive positions. Federal applications establish priority dates determining who used the mark first. Earlier dates win. Registration creates presumptive validity and nationwide rights that make cease and desist letters easier to defend.
Documentation supports independent creation defenses. Maintain design process records. Save inspiration sources. Note creative decisions and iterations. That documentation proves you didn’t copy when facing infringement claims. Courts weigh independent creation when evaluating intent.
Industry considerations vary. Cartoon animal mascots saturate retail, food, automotive, and apparel. Crowded fields require careful clearance. Thorough searches prevent launching into immediate conflicts.
Response options after receiving cease and desist letters include legal analysis of claims, coexistence agreement negotiation, and defensive assertion of your registration rights. Hewett’s registered trademark gives him grounds to push back that unregistered users lack.
Timeline urgency stems from the registration process. Applications take 12 to 18 months assuming no office actions or oppositions. Competitors monitor applications and file oppositions. Establishing priority before public announcement prevents opportunistic filings by others.
Trademark Disputes Scale With Brand Value
When a major brand sends a cease and desist letter, the cost of fighting or complying often exceeds what small businesses spent building their brand. Rebranding means new logos, new packaging, new marketing materials, and explaining the change to customers who knew your old identity. The alternative is litigation that can cost tens of thousands in legal fees even before trial.
When I prepare trademark analyses, I assess whether infringement claims have merit by evaluating likelihood of confusion factors, examining the strength and scope of the plaintiff’s registrations, and identifying potential defenses based on independent creation, different commercial markets, or your own registration rights. I also work with businesses before launch to conduct clearance searches that identify potential conflicts while design changes are still inexpensive, and I file federal applications that establish priority dates and create defensive positions against later cease and desist demands.
If you’ve received a trademark demand letter or want to clear a new brand identity before launch, the analysis depends on specific visual elements, commercial proximity, and registration status. Contact me for a consultation to evaluate your exposure or establish protection before conflicts arise.
