Fueling a Trademark Fight: Buc-ee’s and Mickey’s Gas Station Dispute

by Josh Smith, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 94

I. Introduction

Buc-ee’s, a primarily Southern-based gas station that has now begun to expand into the Midwest, filed a lawsuit in February 2026 against Mickey’s, a Northeast Ohio gas station.¹ The lawsuit claims trademark infringement, arguing there is a likelihood of confusion between Buc-ee’s beaver and Mickey’s moose animated mascots.² Buc-ee’s believes this logo violates its registered trademark under the Lanham Act (“Act”), the primary legislation governing trademark and unfair competition.³ Buc-ee’s filed the suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, seeking injunctive relief and damages.⁴ Buc-ee’s asserts the alleged infringement threatens its brand identity as it expands into new markets, including the state of Ohio.⁵ Specifically, the complaint alleges that shoppers may be confused due to “visual similarities such as a smiling animated animal face in the same direction inside a circular or oval emblem and a comparable color palette.”⁶

Part II provides background on the formation of the companies and their respective histories, including an examination of their registered intellectual property rights. It then discusses the lawsuit itself in more depth, focusing on the claims asserted by Buc-ee’s and the controlling legislation of the Act as well as examining case law factors. Part III further analyzes the Act and evaluates the factors that may affect the strengths and weaknesses of Buc-ee’s claim, including the likelihood of confusion test, geographic market considerations, and the strength of the marks. Finally, Part IV concludes by offering the key question courts will have to determine and the likelihood of how this issue will be resolved.

II. Background

A. History of the Competitors

Buc-ee’s was founded in 1982 in Lake Jackson, Texas, located just outside of Houston.⁷ Today, they are estimated to have $275 million in revenue.⁸ Buc-ee’s differs from most travel gas stations because they offer primarily private-label merchandise, gas stations with over 100 pumps at each location, and more than 52,000 square feet of retail space.⁹ Buc-ee’s has essentially become a Texas-themed amusement park destination with an “everything is bigger in Texas” mindset.¹⁰ While primarily located in the south, Buc-ee’s has actively expanded to other states, including Ohio. The Ohio location is in Huber Heights, a suburb of Dayton, and is newly opened.¹¹ Market penetration reaffirms the company’s commitment to expanding the brand nationally.¹²

The company mascot for Buc-ee’s is Buc-ee the beaver, an animated beaver character wearing a red hat in a yellow circle background facing the right direction.¹³ The beaver mascot comes from the nickname of Arch “Beaver” Aplin, the original founder of Buc-ee’s.¹⁴ The logo is featured on almost everything—gas pumps, food, drinks, and merchandise such as cowboy boots and t-shirts.¹⁵ The logo was officially registered on May 29, 2007, by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).¹⁶ Since the registration date, the company has registered other similar word and design trademarks related to the brand in various colors and fonts for their use.¹⁷

Mickey’s is a gas station convenience store that was also formed in 1982, but is based out of Milan, Ohio, with all their store locations found in the northeastern region of the state.¹⁸ Mickey’s features some private-label food and merchandise items similar to Buc-ee’s; however, they differ primarily by providing name brands in their stores such as Shell gasoline, Taco Bell, Subway, and Dunkin’.¹⁹ Mickey’s is now home to over 35 locations across the state of Ohio.²⁰

Mickey’s is represented by their iconic animated mascot, Mickey the Moose, whose ever-presence is clearly noticed by all who stop into a location.²¹ The Mickey’s logo features an animated moose facing towards the right and is placed against a red background in a hexagon shape.²² This mark was registered with the USPTO on August 20, 2024, but is now facing a challenge due to the filed lawsuit by Buc-ee’s.²³

B. Lawsuit and Lanham Act

Buc-ee’s filed a lawsuit against Mickey’s, claiming trademark infringement.²⁴ A trademark is a name, icon, insignia, or symbol used to alleviate consumer confusion and allow them to associate a specific product with a company.²⁵ Buc-ee’s claims that Mickey’s logo is confusingly similar to Buc-ee’s well-known beaver logo.²⁶ Specifically, the similarity in the “overall design, color scheme, and presentation may mislead customers into believing there is a connection between the two brands.”²⁷ As a result, Buc-ee’s is now seeking to cancel Mickey’s registration with the USPTO.²⁸

Under the Act, which governs trademarks, “the holder of a registered trademark can file an infringement claim against any person who, without the registered trademark holder’s consent,” uses the mark in a way that is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers.²⁹ To prevail on a claim of trademark infringement, Buc-ee’s must prove, in accordance with the factors under AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats: (1) that it has a protectable ownership interest in the mark; and (2) that the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause consumer confusion.³⁰ Some factors courts have considered in whether a mark may be deemed confusing are: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) proximity of the goods or services; (3) similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the marketing channels used; (6) the type of goods or services and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchasers of the defendant’s product; (7) defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; and (8) the likelihood of expansion of the product lines.³¹

Another key factor in considering the likelihood of confusion, besides the logo design itself, is the geographic location.³² The Fourth Circuit analyzed the weight geographic location plays when considering a likelihood of confusion in Westmont Living.³³ Westmont Living filed suit for trademark infringement claiming a likelihood of confusion.³⁴ The court ultimately held for Retirement Unlimited, and found that while many factors are relevant to determining, none of them are truly dispositive.³⁵ Additionally, the physical facilities were located “in entirely distinct geographic markets,” and as a matter of law, there was no way reasonable consumers would be confused.³⁶ When examining geographic markets, some factors the court considered were competitive marketing, locations of soliciting consumers, and the scope of their reputations.³⁷ However, the court mentioned distance may not be enough to eliminate this risk.³⁸ Ultimately, geographic separation can be a decisive factor in reducing the likelihood of confusion, especially when the parties operate in entirely distinct markets with little overlap in customer base or competitive activity.³⁹

III. Discussion

A. Likelihood of Confusion Application

Trademark infringement claims typically determine liability by asking whether the defendant’s mark is likely to cause consumer confusion under the multifactor test articulated in Sleekcraft Boats.⁴⁰ The Sleekcraft framework evaluates whether consumers are likely to believe two brands originate from the same source, with no one factor being dispositive of another.⁴¹ The first relevant factor courts consider is the strength of the mark.⁴² This generally favors a plaintiff when the mark is commercially recognizable and strongly associated with a single source.⁴³ In this case, the beaver mascot used by Buc-ee’s functions as a central element of the company’s brand identity, and the company has repeatedly brought infringement actions to protect that symbol and the goodwill attached to it.⁴⁴ However, trademark doctrine also recognizes that common imagery, like cartoon animals used as mascots, may receive narrower protection where similar themes appear widely across consumer branding.⁴⁵

Courts will also seek to compare the overall commercial impression of the marks from a layperson’s view, including visual design and presentation.⁴⁶ In the present dispute, Buc-ee’s alleges that the competing convenience chain’s logo features a similar smiling cartoon character with large eyes positioned within a rounded background, elements that it argues also resemble their distinctive beaver mascot.⁴⁷ Buc-ee’s further contends that similarities in branding such as the general cartoon animal look and overall presentation of the image could lead consumers to believe that the companies are affiliated.⁴⁸ The proximity-of-the-goods factor also plays a significant role in this dispute because both parties overlap operations within a hybrid convenience-store and gas station market.⁴⁹ At the same time, trademark law recognizes that even businesses operating in the same broad retail sector may occupy distinct market identities where their branding, scale, or geographic presence differ substantially.⁵⁰

Finally, the marketing channels and care that consumers have in purchasing decisions may also influence the analysis because both businesses target everyday retail consumers purchasing low-cost routine goods such as fuel, snacks, and convenience items.⁵¹ When consumers make low-cost, routine purchases in a fast-paced retail environment, courts often assume a lower degree of consumer scrutiny when purchasing, which can increase the likelihood that visual similarities between marks will more easily create confusion.⁵²

None of these factors is dispositive; instead, courts must examine the wide range of these factors and weigh out their decision.⁵³ Because direct evidence of confusion is often difficult to obtain, courts frequently rely on consumer survey evidence to assess how ordinary purchasers perceive competing marks.⁵⁴ Properly designed consumer surveys can provide some of the most persuasive evidence of likely consumer confusion in trademark litigation.⁵⁵ Without direct evidence of consumer confusion in a survey format, Buc-ee’s will have a higher burden to persuade the court and will have to rely on circumstantial evidence in the form of the Sleekcraft.⁵⁶ Companies that are speculative of consumer confusion will sometimes conduct surveys prior to filing suit.⁵⁷ However, due to the expensive nature of conducting a survey, companies will often do these after filing their complaint with the court.⁵⁸

B. Geographic and Territorial Limitations

Trademark rights under the Act extend only so far as the mark’s use and reputation within a particular geographic market, and courts therefore also consider the territorial scope when evaluating the likelihood of confusion between competing marks.⁵⁹ Buc-ee’s, at the time of the lawsuit, did not operate a physical store in Ohio, a fact that could initially suggest geographic separation between the parties’ markets.⁶⁰ In fact, the closest Mickey’s location to the current Buc-ee’s under construction in Ohio is over 120 miles away—close to two hours driving distance.⁶¹ Geographic separation may reduce the likelihood of consumer confusion if the parties’ areas of competition remain distinct and consumers are unlikely to encounter both marks in the same marketplace.⁶²

However, the geographic-territorial analysis does not end with the current absence of Buc-ee’s stores in Ohio.⁶³ Courts recognize that trademark protection may extend beyond a company’s immediate physical footprint where the mark’s reputation, advertising, or expansion plans reach the market of a later-adopting user of a mark.⁶⁴ Buc-ee’s alleges that it has engaged in nationwide marketing and brand promotion and has developed substantial goodwill associated with its beaver logo and travel-center services.⁶⁵ Moreover, Buc-ee’s has publicly pursued expansion into new states in recent years, demonstrating a strategy of entering additional geographic markets.⁶⁶ When the first user of a mark demonstrates a concrete likelihood of expanding into the territory where a later user operates, courts often conclude that geographic distance does not eliminate the possibility of consumer confusion.⁶⁷ Given these expansion plans, a court could reasonably view the Ohio market as part of Buc-ee’s foreseeable zone of operation, reducing the protective effect of territorial separation.⁶⁸ The combination of brand reputation and imminent entry suggests that Mickey’s cannot rely solely on current geographic distance to defend against potential consumer confusion claims.⁶⁹

The competitive overlap in relevant markets—hybrid convenience stores and gas stations—between the parties further weakens any argument that geographic separation eliminates confusion.⁷⁰ Both Buc-ee’s and Mickey’s operate fuel stations and convenience stores that target highway travelers and local consumers seeking similar goods and services.⁷¹ Consumers traveling between states could plausibly encounter both marks despite the distance of geographic location.⁷² Accordingly, the relevant inquiry is not merely whether Buc-ee’s presently operates stores in Ohio, but whether Buc-ee’s reputation, marketing reach, and anticipated expansion create a market environment in which consumers could reasonably assume an affiliation between Buc-ee’s and Mickey’s.⁷³ Buc-ee’s may be likely to demonstrate that its mark’s reputation or imminent expansion reaches the Ohio market and therefore, the theory of territorial limitations will not insulate Mickey’s from potential liability under the Act.⁷⁴

C. Strength and Distinctiveness of the Marks

The determination of the strength of a trademark is based on a spectrum of its level of distinctiveness.⁷⁵ The more distinctive a mark is, the less confusion comes to the minds of ordinary consumers.⁷⁶ Marks are placed on a spectrum from lowest to highest amounts of distinctiveness: generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful.⁷⁷ The line for when a mark establishes sufficient distinctiveness, also referred to as inherently distinctive, is anything suggestive or higher on the spectrum.⁷⁸ Generic marks can never be inherently distinctive, however, descriptive marks can acquire sufficient distinctiveness with sufficient proof of secondary meaning.⁷⁹ Secondary meaning refers to proof that consumers are able to associate a mark with a company’s goods or services and is often best proven through survey evidence.⁸⁰ Courts take into account several factors in determining whether a mark is distinctive, including its colors, shape, uniqueness to the particular industry, and whether the mark is commonly adopted by competitors.⁸¹

Buc-ee’s alleges that in considering the distinctiveness of their beaver mark, they primarily use the color red.⁸² Red is used in the logo and matches the employee’s uniforms, signage, lettering on their stores, and souvenir items.⁸³ Mickey’s also uses red as a predominant color for similar items, however, Buc-ee’s claims that this color usage began after they registered their mark with the USPTO.⁸⁴ However, courts have been hesitant in holding that colors alone are inherently distinctive.⁸⁵ Colors can easily identify anything, not just products, and for this reason, there is a higher burden to prove distinctiveness; companies must do this by proving secondary meaning.⁸⁶ Buc-ee’s has not yet provided a secondary meaning to the color red in the gas station industry being associated with them and therefore, this claim as it stands on its own, is weak.⁸⁷

Courts also consider the shape of design marks in determining the strength of its distinctiveness.⁸⁸ Common geometric shapes such as squares, circles, and rectangles fail to function as an indication of the source of goods or services unless there is proof of acquiring distinctiveness with secondary meaning.⁸⁹ The mark Buc-ee’s claims has been violated is the yellow background portion with a black circle outline.⁹⁰ Conversely, Mickey’s mark is clearly a red hexagonal shape with a red background.⁹¹ Unless consumer surveys demonstrate secondary meaning of yellow circles and black outlines being associated with Buc-ees, which is highly unlikely given the genericness of those features, Buc-ee’s is not likely able to show distinctiveness based on the colors alone.

Another factor courts consider is whether the design is unique or unusual within the relevant industry.⁹² Consumers are less likely to perceive a design as a source identifier when similar imagery is commonplace in the market.⁹³ Here, both parties employ animated animal mascots as their central branded features.⁹⁴ Animal mascots and cartoon character logos are widely used across both the convenience retail and food industries to create memorable brand identities.⁹⁵ Because such visual devices are common marketing tools, the presence of cartoon animal faces may not appear especially confusing to consumers encountering the mark in the industry.⁹⁶ Additionally, ordinary consumers can readily distinguish between a moose and a beaver, absent consumer survey evidence from Buc-ee’s demonstrating otherwise.⁹⁷

Taken together, while Buc-ee’s is a strong brand and has the priority of registration, it may lack the distinctiveness of a strong mark.⁹⁸ Without proof of secondary meaning, Buc-ee’s is unable to likely prove distinctiveness when they claim the color red for gas stations or a yellow circle for their logo.⁹⁹ Finally, animated characters are often used in marketing campaigns and are not unique to most industries, particularly those selling convenience retail products like Buc-ee’s and Mickey’s.¹⁰⁰

IV. Conclusion

The dispute between Buc-ee’s and Mickey’s ultimately illustrates the limits of trademark protection when a strong brand attempts to extend its rights beyond proof of actual consumer confusion.¹⁰¹ Buc-ee’s argues that Mickey’s moose logo combined with the use of red branding in a shape is likely to cause consumer confusion with its well-known beaver mascot.¹⁰² Yet the dispute also highlights the core tension within trademark law: while Buc-ee’s has built substantial goodwill and was the first to register its marks, trademark protection is not intended to grant a monopoly over broadly similar visual themes such as cartoon mascots used by convenience retailers.¹⁰³ With Mickey’s operating dozens of locations primarily in northern Ohio and using its Mickey the Moose branding for years now despite a later registration, the lawsuit raises a critical question for courts applying the likelihood-of-confusion test.¹⁰⁴ The key issue is whether Buc-ee’s is protecting a legitimately distinctive mark or leveraging its brand dominance and first-to-register status to assert broader control over regional competitors and commonplace design elements in the retail convenience market.¹⁰⁵ Buc‑ee’s will likely struggle to assert broad control under the Act without demonstrating that its mark is distinctive, requiring sufficient evidence showing secondary meaning and a likelihood of consumer confusion with the alleged infringing marks.¹⁰⁶

Cover Photo by Engin Akyurt on Unsplash

Joshua Smith

References

1
Tom Zizka, Buc-ee’s sues Ohio chain for trademark infringement, arguing logos too similar, Fox 26 Houston (Feb. 27, 2026), https://www.fox26houston.com/news/buc-ees-sues-ohio-chain-trademark-infringement-arguing-logos-too-similar [https://perma.cc/AV4N-CLSK].
2
Id.
3
Caleb Lawson, Beaver vs. Moose: Buc-ee’s Drags Cleveland-Area Mickey’s Into Logo Showdown, Hoodline (Feb. 25, 2026), https://hoodline.com/2026/02/beaver-vs-moose-buc-ee-s-drags-cleveland-area-mickey-s-into-logo-showdown/ [https://perma.cc/F6GE-JRZJ].
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Id.
7
Peter Carbonara, How Two Texans Made Buc-ee’s Convenience Stores a Phenomenon, Forbes (Aug. 22, 2017), https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercarbonara/2017/08/22/buc-ees-game-of-porcelain-thrones/ [https://perma.cc/R53D-9HJ9].
8
Mitchell Parton, You Want to Spend Money in There: Buc-ee’s is Reinventing the Gas Station in Texas and Beyond, Modern Retail (Aug. 12, 2024), https://www.modernretail.co/marketing/you-want-to-spend-money-in-there-buc-ees-is-reinventing-the-gas-station/ [https://perma.cc/YF7R-JRU9].
9
Carbonara, supra note 7.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Carbonara, supra note 7.
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
Buc‑ee’s (design), Reg. No. 3,246,893 (U.S. Patent & Trademark Office May 29, 2007), https://tsdr.uspto.gov/ [https://perma.cc/F8CU-F9NA] (search Reg. No. 3,246,893).
17
Id.
18
About Us, Mickey’s, https://mickeythemoose.com/pages/about-us [https://perma.cc/PW5Q-CTUT].
19
Id.
20
Greg Lindenberg, Mickey Mart: The Next Generation, CSP Daily News (Oct. 17, 2014), https://www.cspdailynews.com/mergers-acquisitions/mickey-mart-next-generation [https://perma.cc/9E26-M2Q3].
21
About Us, supra note 19.
22
Id.
23
Mickey Mart (stylized), U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 97636365 (U.S. Patent & Trademark Office filed Oct. 18, 2022), https://tsdr.uspto.gov/ [https://perma.cc/3AC7-85GY] (search Serial No. 97636365).
24
Buc‑ee’s Files Trademark Lawsuit Over Logo Similarity: A Lesson in Brand Protection, Muthirai (Mar. 3, 2026), https://www.muthirai.com/blog/buc-ee%E2%80%99s-files-trademark-lawsuit-over-logo-similarity-a-lesson-in-brand-protection/[https://perma.cc/KLJ6-EN3A].
25
What is a Trademark?, Yale University, https://licensing.yale.edu/faqs/what-trademark [https://perma.cc/PVT5-6XHT].
26
Buc‑ee’s Files Trademark Lawsuit, supra note 25.
27
Id.
28
Id.
29
David Muradyan, Likelihood of Confusion Analysis Under the Lanham Act, Weintraub Tobin (Aug. 15, 2012), https://www.theiplawblog.com/2012/08/articles/trademark-law/likelihood-of-confusion-analysis-under-the-lanham-act/ [https://perma.cc/BXZ5-GNAJ].
30
599 F.2d 341, 348 (9th Cir. 1979).
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
Id.
35
Id.; see also Dawn Donut v. Hart’s Food Stores, 267 F.2d 358 (2nd Cir. 1959) (explaining that when parties use their marks in separate and distinct markets, there can be no likelihood of confusion).
36
Id.
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Id.
40
Muradyan, supra note 30.
41
Id.
42
Karish Bjorgum, Intellectual Property for the Plaintiff’s Bar: Trying a Trademark Reverse Confusion Case, KB-IP Law Firm (July, 2008), https://www.kb-ip.com/intellectual-property-plaintiffs-bar-trying-trademark-reverse-confusion-case/ [https://perma.cc/K2D5-NE7T].
43
Id.
44
Zizka, supra note 1
45
Karl Zielaznicki, IP Protection for Featured Characters in Digital and Physical Media, Troutman Pepper Locke (Nov. 16, 2023). https://www.troutman.com/insights/ip-protection-for-featured-characters-in-digital-and-physical-media/ [https://perma.cc/3KS7-7NMZ].
46
Bjorgum, supra note 44.
47
Zizka, supra note 1.
48
Id.
49
Id.
50
Bjorgum, supra note 44.
51
Id.
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Trademarks: Demonstrating Actual Consumer Confusion, Cornell University Law School Social Science and Law,https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/topics/Trademarks-confusion.htm [https://perma.cc/4Q24-SRJM].
55
Id.
56
Bjorgum, supra note 44.
57
Rates and Fees, Keegan and Donato Consulting LLC, https://www.keegandonato.com/rates-fees/ [https://perma.cc/B9S3-YAKY].
58
Id.
59
Id.
60
Hancock, supra note 11.
61
Find A Mickey’s Near You, Mickey’s, https://mickeythemoose.com/pages/store-locator [https://perma.cc/YD5B-BLGR].
62
See Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358, 364 (2d Cir. 1959) (examining geographic effects on the likelihood of confusion test).
63
Andy Corea, Fourth Circuit Confirms: Physical Distance Does Not Avoid Trademark Confusion, Harris Beach Murtha (May 2, 2025), https://www.harrisbeachmurtha.com/insights/physical-distance-does-not-avoid-trademark-confusion/ [https://perma.cc/YT3Q-CHMM].
64
Id.
65
Complaint ¶¶ 12–18, Buc-ee’s, Ltd. v. Coles IP Holdings, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00414 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2026), [https://perma.cc/MK8P-8E8X].
66
Compl. ¶ 16.
67
See Dawn Donut Co., 276 F.2d at 364–65.
68
Corea, supra note 63.
69
Id.
70
Corea, supra note 63.
71
Lawson, supra note 3.
72
Find A Mickey’s Near You, Mickey’s, https://mickeythemoose.com/pages/store-locator [https://perma.cc/YD5B-BLGR].
73
Corea, supra note 63.
74
Id.
75
Poorvika Chandanam, Spectrum of Trademark Distinctiveness, IP Matters (Aug. 14, 2020), https://www.theipmatters.com/post/types-of-marks-protectability [https://perma.cc/62PW-99EE].
76
Id.
77
Id.
78
Id.
79
Id. (for example, the word bike cannot be registered for a company selling bikes as this is the generic name for the product)
80
Id.
81
Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. B.-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 1344 (Cust. & Pat. App. 1977).
82
Compl. ¶ 12.
83
Id.
84
Id.
85
Davide Schiavetti, Color Marks: How to Prove Acquired Distinctiveness?, Rothwell Figg (Nov. 27, 2017), https://www.rothwellfigg.com/publication-Color-Marks-How-to-Prove-Acquired-Distinctiveness [https://perma.cc/NNW4-PN22].
86
Id.
87
Id.
88
Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. B.-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 1344 (Cust. & Pat. App. 1977).
89
Jeffrey Chery, How to Register a Common Shape as Your Trademark, Cowan Liebowitz & Latman (Feb. 9, 2021), https://www.cll.com/OnMyMindBlog/How-to-Register-a-Common-Shape-as-Your-Trademark [https://perma.cc/2HDN-E333].
90
Compl. at 50.
91
About Us, supra note 19.
92
Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. B.-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 1344 (Cust. & Pat. App. 1977).
93
Id.
94
Compl. ¶ 27.
95
Yash Gandhi, Marketing Lessons from Our Favourite Cartoon Characters, LinkedIn (Jun. 4, 2024), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/marketing-lessons-from-our-favourite-cartoon-yash-gandhi–wvnfc/ [https://perma.cc/T8RR-G8E8].
96
Id.
97
Chandanam, supra note 75.
98
Id.
99
Id.
100
Id.
101
Sands Anderson, Trademarks Are Not Monopolies, JDSUPRA (Jun. 4, 2013), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/trademarks-are-not-monopolies-63327/ [https://perma.cc/K9UY-ZUFF].
102
Compl. ¶¶ 12–18.
103
Anderson, supra note 101.
104
About Us, supra note 19.
105
Anderson, supra note 101.
106
David Fryman, Understanding Secondary Meaning in Trademark Law, Fryman P.C. (Feb. 19, 2026), https://www.frymanpc.com/blog/understanding-secondary-meaning-in-trademark-law [https://perma.cc/58R5-6CUW].