What started as a clever pun for an Ohio food truck has become a federal trademark battlefield that every business owner should understand. On June 3, 2025, Kellogg North America Co. LLC filed a comprehensive trademark lawsuit against a small hibachi operation called “L’eggo My Eggroll,” transforming what might have seemed like harmless wordplay into a case study of how trademark protection works in practice.
This David versus Goliath story offers crucial lessons about the boundaries of trademark law, the risks of building a brand around someone else’s intellectual property, and why professional trademark guidance matters more than the size of your business.
The Players and the Problem
The Trademark at Stake
Kellogg’s Eggo brand traces back to 1936, with the famous “L’eggo My Eggo” advertising slogan introduced in the early 1970s. This isn’t just a catchy phrase, it represents decades of marketing investment, consumer recognition, and legal protection that has made Eggo synonymous with frozen waffles in American households.
The federal trademark registrations covering “Eggo” extend beyond just the name itself. Kellogg holds multiple registrations that protect various aspects of the brand, from the word mark to specific design elements and trade dress that consumers associate with the product. These registrations provide nationwide protection and create legal presumptions that become powerful tools in enforcement actions.
When you invest millions in building brand recognition and securing legal protection, any unauthorized use that might confuse consumers becomes a direct threat to your business assets. For Kellogg, allowing even a small food truck to operate with a confusingly similar name could set a precedent that weakens their ability to protect the Eggo brand against future infringers.
Enter the Food Truck
L’eggo My Eggroll operated as a street hibachi food truck based in Findlay, Ohio. The business name represents an obvious play on Kellogg’s famous slogan, substituting “eggroll” for “Eggo” while maintaining the distinctive “L’eggo My” structure that makes the original phrase memorable.
The food truck’s branding extended beyond just the name to include visual elements that Kellogg claims mirror their protected trade dress, including a yellow color scheme with red cursive lettering that resembles Eggo waffle packaging. This comprehensive similarity across multiple brand elements escalated what might have been a simple name dispute into a complex intellectual property conflict.
Understanding the Legal Claims: Five Ways to Infringe
Kellogg’s complaint includes five distinct counts: federal trademark infringement, federal trade dress infringement, federal unfair competition and false designation of origin, federal trademark dilution by blurring, and federal trademark dilution by tarnishment. Each count represents a different way that unauthorized use can harm trademark owners, and understanding these distinctions helps explain why trademark law provides such robust protection.
Federal Trademark Infringement
The core of any trademark infringement case centers on likelihood of confusion. Courts don’t require proof that consumers are actually confused; they analyze whether the similarities between the marks, goods, and marketing channels create a probability that reasonable consumers might mistakenly believe the businesses are related.
In this case, the analysis seems straightforward. “L’eggo My Eggroll” borrows the exact structure and cadence of “L’eggo My Eggo,” changing only the final word. Even though eggrolls and waffles are different food products, both operate in the broader food service industry, and the phonetic similarity is unmistakable.
The legal standard considers factors including the strength of the original mark, the degree of similarity between the marks, the similarity of goods and services, the marketing channels used, and evidence of actual confusion. When marks are nearly identical and the businesses operate in related fields, infringement claims typically succeed.
Trade Dress Infringement: More Than Just Words
Trade dress protection extends to the overall visual appearance of products or businesses, including color schemes, font choices, layout, and design elements that create distinctive commercial impressions. Kellogg argues that the food truck’s yellow and red color scheme with cursive lettering constitutes an infringement of their Eggo packaging trade dress.
This aspect of the case demonstrates how trademark protection reaches beyond words to encompass the complete visual identity that consumers associate with a brand. The combination of colors, fonts, and design elements can become as legally significant as the name itself, particularly when these elements help consumers identify the source of goods or services.
Trade dress infringement requires proof that the protected elements are non-functional and distinctive, and that the alleged infringer’s use creates likelihood of confusion. When a business adopts not just a similar name but also similar visual branding, it strengthens the trademark owner’s case significantly.
Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin
These claims address the broader competitive harm that can result from trademark infringement. When one business adopts confusingly similar branding to another, it gains an unfair advantage by trading on the goodwill and reputation that the original business built through its own efforts and investment.
False designation of origin specifically targets conduct that misleads consumers about the source or sponsorship of goods or services. Even if the food truck never explicitly claimed to be affiliated with Kellogg, the similar branding could lead consumers to assume some connection exists.
These claims often become important in calculating damages, as they help establish that the infringement caused competitive harm beyond simple trademark violation.
Trademark Dilution: Weakening a Famous Mark
Dilution claims provide special protection for famous trademarks, allowing owners to stop uses that either blur the distinctiveness of their marks or tarnish their reputation, even when no likelihood of confusion exists.
Dilution by blurring occurs when another’s use weakens the ability of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services. If consumers begin associating “L’eggo My” with eggrolls as well as waffles, it could diminish the distinctive power of Kellogg’s slogan.
Dilution by tarnishment happens when another’s use harms the reputation of a famous mark. While this seems less applicable to a food truck serving eggrolls, any negative associations with the similar mark could potentially reflect back on the Eggo brand.
When Negotiations Go Sideways
The Cease and Desist Process
Before filing suit, Kellogg sent numerous letters to the food truck and initiated several oral communications requesting that the infringing conduct cease. This represents standard practice in trademark enforcement, as courts expect trademark owners to attempt resolution before resorting to litigation.
Cease and desist letters serve multiple purposes beyond just seeking voluntary compliance. They establish that the trademark owner is actively protecting their rights, create a record of the infringer’s knowledge of the trademark claims, and demonstrate good faith efforts to resolve disputes efficiently.
For recipients of such letters, the critical mistake is ignoring them or assuming that small business size provides protection from enforcement. Trademark rights don’t depend on the relative size of the businesses involved, and federal law provides the same remedies whether the infringer is a multinational corporation or a single food truck.
Unusual Responses and Escalation
Rather than engaging constructively with Kellogg’s requests, L’eggo My Eggroll allegedly refused to comply and instead retaliated with “its own threats,” including demanding that Kellogg “purchase its entire business in exchange for a substantial monetary sum.” The food truck also allegedly insisted that Kellogg pay medical bills related to a principal’s “alleged reaction” to receiving one of the legal letters.
These responses illustrate how not to handle trademark disputes. Rather than seeking legal counsel to evaluate the claims and explore resolution options, the food truck’s confrontational approach virtually guaranteed litigation while potentially increasing their liability exposure.
When businesses respond to legitimate trademark concerns with demands for payment or threats, they create additional evidence that can be used against them in court. Courts view such responses unfavorably, as they suggest bad faith and unwillingness to respect intellectual property rights.
The Legal Battlefield: What Kellogg Seeks
Injunctive Relief
Kellogg seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions blocking the defendant from using the trademarks, the packaging trade dress, and from “unlawfully trading upon and misappropriating the goodwill and reputation of Kellogg.” This represents the most immediate and significant threat to the food truck’s operations.
An injunction would require the business to immediately stop using the “L’eggo My Eggroll” name and any similar branding elements. For a business that has built its identity around this name, such an order could effectively end operations unless they can quickly rebrand with a completely different identity.
Preliminary injunctions can be granted early in litigation if the trademark owner demonstrates likelihood of success and irreparable harm. Given the obvious similarities between the marks, such relief could come quickly, forcing the food truck to choose between immediate rebranding or shutting down while litigation continues.
Financial Consequences
Kellogg seeks damages, attorney fees, and destruction of all infringing materials. The financial exposure for a small business facing such claims can quickly exceed the value of the entire operation.
Damages in trademark cases can include the profits that the infringer earned from the unauthorized use, any profits that the trademark owner lost due to the infringement, and the costs of corrective advertising. Attorney fees become available when the infringement is found to be willful, which the food truck’s confrontational response to cease and desist letters could support.
The requirement to destroy all infringing materials means not just changing the business name, but disposing of signs, menus, vehicle wraps, promotional materials, and any other items bearing the infringing marks. For a small business, these replacement costs alone could be devastating.
David vs. Goliath: The Small Business Perspective
The Appeal of Clever Branding
Entrepreneurs naturally gravitate toward memorable names that will help their businesses stand out in crowded markets. Puns, wordplay, and references to popular culture can create instant recognition and memorability that would take years to build with completely original branding.
The challenge lies in distinguishing between inspiration and infringement. While you can’t trademark ideas or concepts, you can protect specific expressions of those ideas. A business name that merely evokes or suggests another brand might be acceptable, but one that directly incorporates protected elements crosses into dangerous territory.
The food truck industry particularly benefits from memorable names that customers can easily remember and recommend to others. However, the temporary and mobile nature of food trucks doesn’t provide any special protection from trademark enforcement, and the visual prominence of business names on vehicle graphics can actually increase infringement liability.
Resource Disparity in Trademark Litigation
The most sobering aspect of this case is the dramatic imbalance in resources between the parties. Kellogg is represented by experienced trademark attorneys from Honigman LLP, including Mary A. Hyde, Deborah J. Swedlow, and Yafeez S. Fatabhoy. This level of legal firepower represents costs that could quickly exceed the total value of a small food truck operation.
Federal trademark litigation typically costs tens of thousands of dollars minimum, and complex cases can reach six figures. For most small businesses, these costs alone create enormous pressure to settle quickly, regardless of the merits of their position.
This resource disparity underscores why prevention through proper trademark clearance is so much more cost-effective than defending against infringement claims. The relatively modest cost of comprehensive trademark searching and legal consultation before launching a business pales in comparison to litigation expenses.
Broader Lessons for Business Owners
The Enforcement Imperative
Large companies like Kellogg don’t pursue small infringers out of spite or greed. Trademark law creates a “use it or lose it” system where failure to enforce rights against some infringers can weaken the ability to protect against others. If Kellogg allowed food trucks to use variations of “L’eggo My Eggo,” it would become much harder to stop more serious competitive threats in the future.
This enforcement imperative means that the size of your business or the innocence of your intentions provides no protection from trademark claims. Companies must treat all infringement consistently to maintain the strength of their legal position.
The practical result is that even businesses with no intention of competing directly with trademark owners can find themselves subject to federal lawsuits if their branding creates likelihood of confusion or dilution.
Clearance Before Commitment
The most important lesson from this case is the critical importance of comprehensive trademark clearance before adopting any business name, logo, or branding. Professional trademark searching can identify potential conflicts before you invest in signage, marketing materials, or business development.
A proper clearance search examines federal trademark registrations, state registrations, common law uses, and internet presence to assess the likelihood that your proposed mark will conflict with existing rights. This process also includes legal analysis to determine whether any identified conflicts pose genuine risks or can be distinguished.
The cost of professional trademark clearance represents a fraction of what businesses typically spend on initial branding and marketing. When compared to the potential costs of litigation or forced rebranding, it becomes an essential business investment rather than an optional expense.
Building Defensive Strategies
The safest approach to trademark selection involves creating distinctive marks that stand entirely on their own merit rather than playing off existing brands. While references and parodies can sometimes be legally permissible, they create unnecessary risk that most businesses should avoid.
Original branding takes more effort to establish in the marketplace, but it provides much stronger legal protection and eliminates the risk of third-party enforcement actions. When your brand identity is completely original, you become the one with trademark rights to protect rather than the one defending against infringement claims.
Consider also that building a brand around someone else’s intellectual property makes your business vulnerable to their marketing decisions. If Kellogg decided to phase out the “L’eggo My Eggo” slogan, businesses trading on that phrase would lose much of their recognition value.
Practical Takeaways for Your Business
Red Flags to Avoid
Business names that incorporate famous slogans, even with word substitutions, create obvious trademark risks. The “L’eggo My Eggroll” case demonstrates that changing one word in a protected phrase doesn’t eliminate likelihood of confusion when the overall structure and sound remain similar.
Visual branding that mirrors the color schemes, fonts, or design elements of established brands compounds trademark problems. Even if your business name is sufficiently different, adopting similar trade dress can create separate liability for trade dress infringement.
Don’t assume that operating in a different industry provides complete protection. While selling eggrolls is clearly different from selling frozen waffles, both operate in the food service sector where consumers might reasonably expect brand extensions or licensing relationships.
Proactive Protection Steps
Invest in comprehensive trademark searching before committing to any business identity. This process should examine not just identical matches, but similar marks that could create confusion. Professional searching includes analysis of phonetic similarities, visual resemblances, and conceptual connections that might not be obvious to business owners.
Understand the trademark landscape in your industry by researching how competitors protect their brands and what types of conflicts commonly arise. This knowledge helps you identify potential problem areas and make informed decisions about branding strategies.
Work with experienced trademark counsel to develop a brand identity that provides strong protection while avoiding conflicts with existing rights. This investment in professional guidance typically pays for itself by preventing much more expensive problems later.
If You Receive a Cease and Desist
Take any trademark enforcement letter seriously, regardless of your business size or the perceived strength of the claims. These letters represent formal legal demands that can quickly escalate to federal litigation if ignored or handled improperly.
Consult with qualified trademark counsel immediately upon receiving any intellectual property enforcement demand. The initial response often determines whether disputes can be resolved efficiently or will require expensive litigation to resolve.
Avoid emotional or confrontational responses that could be used as evidence of bad faith in subsequent legal proceedings. Even if you believe the claims are unfounded, professional legal analysis should guide your response strategy rather than personal reactions to the demands.
Your Brand Deserves Professional Protection
Why This Case Matters to You
The Kellogg versus L’eggo My Eggroll dispute illustrates how quickly trademark conflicts can destroy years of business building. What started as a creative name for a food truck has become a federal case that could eliminate the business entirely, regardless of its success or customer satisfaction.
The exponential difference between prevention and litigation costs makes professional trademark guidance one of the most cost-effective investments any business can make. The fees for comprehensive clearance and registration typically equal just a few months of marketing expenses, but they provide protection that can last indefinitely with proper maintenance.
Waiting until your business is established to address trademark issues only increases the potential damage from enforcement actions. Once you’ve built customer recognition, invested in signage and marketing materials, and developed operational systems around a particular brand identity, changing becomes exponentially more expensive and disruptive.
Taking Action Today
As a licensed trademark attorney who has filed over 6,000 trademark applications, I help businesses navigate the complex process of brand protection from initial clearance through registration and enforcement. My approach emphasizes preventing problems before they start rather than solving them after they’ve already caused damage.
The comprehensive trademark search and filing packages I provide include detailed analysis of potential conflicts, strategic recommendations for brand development, and ongoing monitoring to protect your investment. This proactive approach helps ensure that your business identity becomes an asset that supports growth rather than a liability that threatens your future.
Don’t let your business become the next cautionary tale in trademark law. Contact my office today to schedule a consultation and take the first step toward protecting your most valuable business asset. Every day without proper trademark protection is a day your brand remains vulnerable to the kind of devastating enforcement action that L’eggo My Eggroll now faces.
