When Beyond Meat and Dunkin’ Donuts launched their celebrity-studded national advertising campaign in 2019, they used a catchy slogan: “Great Taste, Plant-Based.” A small Philadelphia company had registered a nearly identical phrase four years earlier. That oversight just cost Beyond Meat $38.9 million.
A Jury Verdict Six Years in the Making
On November 24, 2025, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found Beyond Meat liable for willful trademark infringement. The verdict awarded Vegadelphia Foods, a Philadelphia-based plant protein company operating since 2004, a total of $38.9 million: $23.5 million in actual damages plus $15.4 million in disgorgement of profits. The trial ran from November 10 through November 24, with seven days of testimony that dissected every element of the advertising campaign. Both sides presented expert witnesses on consumer perception and brand valuation.
The dispute centered on Vegadelphia’s registered trademark “WHERE GREAT TASTE IS PLANT-BASED.” When Beyond Meat partnered with Dunkin’ in July 2019 to launch the Beyond Sausage Breakfast Sandwich, their joint advertising campaign featured the slogans “Great Taste, Plant-Based” and “Plant-Based, Great Taste.” The campaign included television spots, digital advertising, and in-store promotions across Dunkin’ locations nationwide. Thousands of stores displayed the messaging. Millions of consumers saw it. The jury decided those phrases crossed the line from descriptive language into trademark infringement.
Beyond Meat has announced plans to appeal the verdict. Dunkin’ Brands took a different path, settling its involvement in September 2024 and exiting the case by November 2024. The original lawsuit, filed in April 2022 in Florida federal court before transferring to Massachusetts, named both companies as defendants. The contrast in strategies produced a contrast in outcomes: Dunkin’ walked away on undisclosed terms while Beyond Meat now faces a judgment that exceeds its entire 2024 net revenue. For a company already struggling with declining sales, the timing couldn’t be worse.
Why the Fair Use Defense Collapsed
Beyond Meat’s legal team built their case on fair use. The argument seemed reasonable on its surface: “great taste” and “plant-based” are descriptive terms. Competitors should be able to describe their products using common words. The jury disagreed entirely.
The problem wasn’t using descriptive words. The problem was using them in a combination that mirrored an existing trademark. “WHERE GREAT TASTE IS PLANT-BASED” versus “GREAT TASTE, PLANT-BASED” creates obvious similarity. Rearranging word order doesn’t create sufficient distinction when the core phrase remains intact. Courts look at the overall commercial impression. Both phrases deliver the same message in the same market.
The willfulness finding made the damages calculation particularly painful. Court documents indicated that Beyond Meat and Dunkin’ “knew about this federally registered trademark on information and belief” when they adopted the slogan. That knowledge transforms a trademark dispute from a correction-and-move-on situation into one where the infringer must surrender profits attributable to the violation. Good faith mistakes result in different outcomes. Willful infringement opens the door to punitive remedies.
The $15.4 million disgorgement component reflects this principle. Beyond the $23.5 million in actual damages Vegadelphia suffered, Beyond Meat must hand over profits they earned while using the infringing slogan. When infringement is willful, courts can reach into the defendant’s pocket, not just compensate the plaintiff’s losses. Active trademark protection strategies could have flagged this conflict before a single ad ran.
Vegadelphia claimed the infringement damaged more than their market position. According to trial testimony, the trademark dispute derailed negotiations with food industry executives about a partnership that could have valued the company at $100 million within years. The jury apparently found those claims credible. The damages award reflected lost opportunities, not just current market harm.
The Plant-Based Battleground
The plant-based food market has exploded from niche health food into mainstream grocery competition. Beyond Meat went public in 2019 with a market valuation that briefly exceeded traditional meat companies. The IPO generated enormous buzz. Impossible Foods landed partnerships with Burger King. Grocery store freezer sections now dedicate entire aisles to meat alternatives. In this environment, advertising becomes a weapon. Market share depends on consumer recognition. Brand messaging is everything.
National campaigns build consumer associations. When Dunkin’ and Beyond Meat repeated “Great Taste, Plant-Based” across television, digital, and in-store advertising, they were investing in mental real estate. Each repetition strengthened the connection between that phrase and their product. Celebrity endorsements amplified the reach. The problem: someone else already owned that phrase.
Vegadelphia had been registering a trademark for a slogan and building their brand around plant-based proteins since 2004, fifteen years before Beyond Meat’s Dunkin’ partnership launched. They weren’t a competitor at Beyond Meat’s scale, but trademark law doesn’t require size parity. A small company with a registered mark has rights that larger competitors must respect. Federal registration creates nationwide protection regardless of the registrant’s market footprint.
The settlement-versus-trial contrast offers its own lesson. Dunkin’ assessed the risk, negotiated an exit, and moved on. Beyond Meat fought to the verdict and now faces a judgment that represents a significant portion of their annual revenue. Settlement terms remain confidential, but it’s safe to assume Dunkin’ paid substantially less than $38.9 million. The decision to litigate rather than settle multiplied the financial exposure.
For co-branding partnerships, this case creates new considerations. Both Beyond Meat and Dunkin’ faced liability for the same advertising campaign. When two companies collaborate on marketing, both companies bear trademark risk. The clearance burden doesn’t shift to one partner. Each company should independently verify that shared advertising language is clear.
Clearing Slogans Before Creative Development
Slogan clearance operates differently from product name clearance. When I conduct clearance searches for advertising phrases, the methodology has to account for how slogans function in the marketplace. A product name identifies one thing. A slogan can appear across multiple products, campaigns, and contexts. The search scope expands accordingly. Variations matter. Synonyms matter. Similar phrasing in the same industry creates risk.
The timing creates the critical vulnerability. By the time Beyond Meat and Dunkin’ launched their campaign, they had likely invested significantly in creative development, media buys, and production. National television spots don’t come cheap. Celebrity endorsements add millions more. In-store promotional materials require lead time and print runs. Changing direction at launch means writing off that investment. Changing direction before creative development costs almost nothing.
“Descriptive” doesn’t mean “safe.” Beyond Meat’s fair use defense failed precisely because descriptive words, when combined into a distinctive phrase, can function as trademarks. A professional trademark search would have revealed Vegadelphia’s registration and the risk it created. The search might cost a few hundred dollars. The verdict cost $38.9 million. That ratio should inform every advertising budget.
Word order variations trap businesses into false confidence. “Great Taste, Plant-Based” versus “WHERE GREAT TASTE IS PLANT-BASED” may look different at first glance. The legal analysis looks at overall commercial impression. Both phrases use the same core concept in the same market for the same purpose. That’s infringement territory. Minor rewording doesn’t create meaningful distinction.
Co-branding partners should conduct independent clearance. Dunkin’ presumably trusted Beyond Meat’s legal team to handle trademark issues for their joint campaign. That trust resulted in shared liability. When two companies attach their names to the same advertising, both companies should verify the language is clear. Relying on a partner’s due diligence creates unnecessary risk.
Documentation matters if disputes arise. A thorough clearance search creates a record showing good faith effort to avoid conflicts. Beyond Meat apparently proceeded without discovering or addressing Vegadelphia’s mark. That gap contributed to the willfulness finding and the enhanced damages it enabled. A paper trail showing due diligence can be the difference between a warning and a verdict. Without it, courts assume you knew the risks and proceeded anyway.
Protecting Your Advertising Investment
The gap between creative development and trademark clearance creates multi-million dollar exposure. Beyond Meat invested in a national campaign built on a slogan that a trademark search would have flagged. The fair use defense that seemed reasonable failed entirely at trial.
When I work with businesses launching advertising campaigns, slogan clearance happens before creative development locks in language. The search methodology covers USPTO registrations, state filings, common law use, and competitor advertising. This process identifies conflicts when changing direction costs nothing.
If you’re developing advertising slogans or taglines, contact me for a consultation before your campaign launches. The clearance investment protects the entire advertising spend behind it.
