In April 2025, a trademark dispute erupted that perfectly illustrates the David vs. Goliath battles small businesses face in protecting their brand identity. Nestlé, the world’s largest food and beverage company, filed a petition asking the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the trademark registration of Seattle Strong, a cold brew company that started as a University of Washington class project in 2017. The central question driving this legal conflict: Can a multinational corporation claim exclusive rights to use “Seattle” in coffee branding?
This case offers valuable lessons for any business owner navigating the complex world of trademark protection, especially when facing challenges from larger competitors with deeper pockets.
The Players in This Legal Drama
Seattle Strong Coffee Company: The Local Underdog
Seattle Strong began as a class project at the University of Washington’s Foster School of Business in 2017, initially intended as coursework before evolving into a full-fledged company. Founder Evan Oeflein built the business around a simple mission: creating smooth, ready-to-drink craft cold brew coffee that represents Seattle’s rich coffee culture.
By 2025, Seattle Strong’s products were available in 350 grocery stores across the Pacific Northwest, as well as in Los Angeles and Texas. The company received federal trademark registration for “Seattle Strong” in 2023, two years before Nestlé’s challenge. Importantly, Seattle Strong focuses exclusively on cold brew products and maintains all operations in Seattle.
Nestlé: The Global Heavyweight
Nestlé’s involvement in this dispute stems from its 2022 acquisition of the Seattle’s Best Coffee brand from Starbucks. Unlike Seattle Strong’s narrow focus on cold brew, Seattle’s Best sells a variety of coffee products, including whole-bean coffee and Keurig pods. With more than 2,000 brands worldwide and billions in annual revenue, Nestlé possesses the resources to sustain lengthy legal battles that could financially devastate smaller competitors.
What Nestlé Claims in Its Challenge
The Core Arguments
Nestlé argues that Seattle Strong’s name is so similar to Seattle’s Best that coffee buyers may confuse the two brands. Beyond simple confusion, the food giant claims the similarity is “likely to dilute the distinctiveness of Nestlé’s Seattle’s Best mark” and could damage the company.
These arguments invoke two fundamental principles of trademark law: likelihood of confusion and trademark dilution. Understanding these concepts helps explain why this case matters for all business owners considering geographic terms in their branding.
Understanding Likelihood of Confusion
Trademark law protects consumers from confusion about the source of goods or services. Courts analyze several factors when determining whether two marks create a likelihood of confusion: similarity between the marks themselves, similarity of the goods or services offered, strength of the existing trademark, marketing channels used by both companies, sophistication of the average consumer, and evidence of actual confusion in the marketplace.
In this case, both marks incorporate “Seattle” and relate to coffee products, creating the foundation for Nestlé’s argument.
How Trademark Dilution Works
Dilution occurs when a newer mark weakens the distinctiveness of a famous existing mark, even without consumer confusion. However, dilution claims require proving that the existing mark qualifies as “famous” under federal law, a demanding standard that goes beyond simple recognition within a particular industry.
Seattle Strong’s Defense Strategy
Fighting Back with Facts
Seattle Strong argues that confusion is unlikely, given that Seattle Strong exclusively focuses on cold brew while Seattle’s Best brand sells a variety of coffee products. This product differentiation strategy highlights how different market segments can reduce likelihood of confusion.
The company also contends it “would suffer undue prejudice” by having to change its branding after building a business around its trademark for several years. This argument emphasizes the real-world consequences of trademark disputes for established businesses.
Challenging Geographic Monopolization
Seattle Strong’s response characterizes Nestlé’s petition as “an ill-fated effort by a large multinational company to control the use of the name of the city ‘Seattle’ in coffee-related products in an attempt to bully a small, local coffee company from Seattle”. This framing raises important questions about whether geographic terms can be monopolized by single entities.
The company’s founder, Evan Oeflein, put it simply: “They seem to think they own the name Seattle”. This sentiment reflects a broader concern about large corporations claiming exclusive rights to geographic identifiers that hold cultural significance for local businesses.
The Trademark Law Principles at Stake
Can Geographic Terms Be Monopolized?
Geographic terms occupy a unique position in trademark law. Generally, purely descriptive geographic terms cannot receive trademark protection unless they acquire “secondary meaning” through extensive use and consumer recognition. However, when geographic terms are used in arbitrary or suggestive ways, they may qualify for protection.
The question becomes: Do “Seattle’s Best” and “Seattle Strong” represent descriptive geographic usage, or have these marks developed sufficient distinctiveness to warrant exclusive protection? The answer affects not just these two companies, but any business wanting to incorporate geographic identity into their branding.
Multiple Registrations for Geographic Areas
Trademark law doesn’t typically grant blanket exclusivity over geographic terms across all industries. Multiple companies can often coexist using the same geographic identifier if they operate in different industries or serve different market segments. This principle supports Seattle Strong’s argument that coffee consumers can distinguish between cold brew specialists and general coffee product manufacturers.
Timeline and What Happens Next
The USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board set a timeline for the case in June 2025, with a trial expected in 2026. This opposition proceeding will allow both parties to present evidence and arguments before administrative judges who specialize in trademark disputes.
The TTAB Process Explained
Opposition proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board follow a structured timeline:
- Discovery Phase: Both parties exchange evidence and take depositions
- Trial Phase: Submission of evidence and legal briefs (no live testimony)
- Decision: TTAB issues a written ruling
This process typically takes 12-18 months from start to finish, though extensions and appeals can extend the timeline significantly.
The Broader Implications for Business Owners
The Cost of Trademark Defense
Seattle Strong launched a GoFundMe campaign to raise $10,000 for legal expenses, highlighting the financial burden trademark disputes place on small businesses. Even successful defenses can cost tens of thousands of dollars, creating strategic considerations beyond the legal merits.
This reality demonstrates why proactive trademark planning matters more than reactive legal defense. The cost of proper clearance searches and strategic trademark selection pales compared to the expense of defending against well-funded challengers.
Strategic Lessons for Small Business Owners
Seattle Strong’s experience offers three key insights for other small businesses. Geographic branding creates powerful brand connections, but also invites challenges from other businesses using similar geographic identifiers. Consider whether your brand can succeed with more distinctive, non-geographic elements.
Seattle Strong benefits from clear evidence of its 2017 founding and 2023 federal registration. Maintaining detailed records of trademark use, marketing efforts, and business development strengthens your position in any future disputes.
The company’s exclusive focus on cold brew creates a clear distinction from Seattle’s Best’s broader product line. Clear market positioning can help support non-confusion arguments in trademark disputes.
What This Case Teaches About Trademark Strategy
Building Strong Trademark Foundations
The strongest trademarks are fanciful (completely made-up words like “Kodak”) or arbitrary (common words used in unrelated contexts like “Apple” for computers). Geographic terms fall into a weaker category that requires more careful handling.
When geographic identity is important to your brand story, consider combining geographic terms with distinctive elements that make your mark unique. “Seattle Strong” works better than simply “Seattle Coffee” because “Strong” adds a distinctive element beyond pure geographic description.
Conducting Proper Clearance
Before investing in branding, conduct thorough trademark searches that go beyond obvious identical matches. Look for marks that could create confusion based on similar sounds or meanings, related industry sectors, and different product categories that might expand into your space.
Professional trademark searches cost far less than defending against infringement claims later.
Building Evidence of Distinctiveness
From day one, document how you use your trademark. Save marketing materials showing consistent trademark usage, maintain records of business growth and market recognition, collect customer feedback that demonstrates brand recognition, and track any instances where customers distinguish your brand from competitors.
This evidence becomes crucial if you ever need to defend your trademark rights.
The Stakes Beyond Coffee
Precedent for Local Businesses
This dispute extends beyond coffee into broader questions about local business rights versus corporate trademark portfolios. If large corporations can successfully challenge local businesses using geographic terms, it could chill entrepreneurial activity in cities with strong cultural identities.
Industry-Specific Considerations
The coffee industry presents unique challenges because of its association with specific geographic regions (Seattle, Portland, Vienna, etc.). The outcome of this case could influence how coffee companies approach geographic branding and whether smaller regional brands can compete with national corporations in the trademark arena.
Protecting Your Brand Before Disputes Arise
Early Planning Prevents Later Problems
The Nestlé vs. Seattle Strong dispute illustrates why trademark strategy belongs in your business planning from the beginning, not after you’ve built substantial brand recognition. Consider these essential steps:
- Choose distinctive marks: While geographic terms can support your brand story, combine them with unique elements that set you apart from competitors
- Register early: Federal trademark registration provides significant advantages in disputes, including legal presumptions of ownership and validity
- Monitor your space: Keep track of new trademark applications and business launches in your industry to identify potential conflicts before they become major problems
- Build your record: Document your trademark use and business success to support future enforcement or defense efforts
When Facing Larger Competitors
If you find yourself in Seattle Strong’s position, consider these critical factors:
- Evaluate your legal position: Strong trademark rights and clear product differentiation provide better defense prospects than weak marks in crowded market segments
- Calculate the real costs: Legal fees represent just one expense; consider the distraction from business operations and potential damage to business relationships
- Explore settlement options: Sometimes negotiated coexistence agreements serve both parties better than expensive litigation
- Document non-confusion: Gather evidence that customers clearly distinguish between your products and the challenger’s offerings
Looking Forward: What the Decision Could Mean
The resolution of this trademark dispute will influence how future cases involving geographic terms and small business rights unfold. A victory for Seattle Strong could encourage other local businesses to defend their geographic branding against larger competitors. Conversely, a win for Nestlé might signal that well-funded corporations can successfully challenge smaller businesses using similar geographic identifiers.
Regardless of the outcome, this case demonstrates the ongoing tension between protecting established trademark rights and preserving space for local businesses to build brands connected to their geographic identity.
Your Brand Deserves Protection
Every business owner can learn from Seattle Strong’s experience, whether you’re just choosing your company name or defending an established brand. The key insight: trademark protection works best as a proactive strategy, not a reactive response to threats.
Don’t wait until you’re facing a challenge from a larger competitor to secure your trademark rights. Proper planning, clearance searches, and strategic registration can prevent these conflicts while building a stronger foundation for your business growth.
The trademark process may seem complex, but the alternative, defending your brand in expensive disputes, costs far more than getting it right from the start. Your brand represents years of hard work and customer relationships. It deserves protection that matches its value to your business. Contact us today or start protecting your brand now.
