Imagine starting your coffee brand as a college project and watching it grow into neighborhood grocery shelves… only to have a global corporation challenge your right to your name.

That is exactly what is happening between Seattle Strong, a cold-brew coffee company founded in 2017 from a University of Washington class project, and the Nestlé-owned Seattle’s Best Coffee.

You may already understand why Nestlé filed a petition to cancel the Seattle Strong mark, but here it is spelled out just in case: Nestlé is arguing it is confusingly similar to Seattle’s Best, which the brand has used since at least 1989 and was federally registered in 2003.

Since the similarity between the two marks is essentially based on the fact that both use “Seattle” in their names, Seattle Strong founder Evan Oeflein finds the whole thing “pretty ludicrous…To say…no one else can use the word Seattle, I think, is an exceptional stretch.”

The company also frames the case as a classic “David versus Goliath” battle, accusing Nestlé of trying to monopolize the use of “Seattle” in coffee for its own gain.

What does trademark law say?

Trademark Basics: What Is at Stake Here?

Two key legal doctrines are in play:

Likelihood of Confusion

Trademark law protects consumers from being misled about the source of goods. Courts weigh factors such as the similarity of marks, how related the goods are, the channels through which they are sold, and any evidence of actual confusion.

Seattle Strong argues that confusion is unlikely because its focus is cold brew, while Seattle’s Best spans whole-bean coffee, K-cup pods, and more. 

Trademark Dilution

Even without confusion, a “famous” mark can claim dilution if another mark weakens the  distinctiveness of the famous mark. Nestlé claims Seattle’s Best, which has been in use since 1989, qualifies as a famous mark both through coffee sales and decades of national advertising presence.  

Where Does “Seattle” Come into Play in This Case?

Geographic terms such as “Seattle” are generally weak marks. They are descriptive, and they are not inherently distinctive unless they acquire “secondary meaning” by being strongly associated with a particular business. 

That is why using geographic identity in branding demands caution. Courts are more inclined to allow multiple businesses to use geographic terms in overlapping industries, especially when context and branding differ. This would seem to push things in Seattle Strong’s favor, but “winning” still comes with a price.

Real-World Impact: The Cost of a Name

Even if Seattle Strong ultimately prevails, the process (and associated legal costs) can be financially draining for a small business. Case-in-point: the company has launched a GoFundMe to help cover mounting bills. It is a sober reminder that intellectual property disputes can divert precious resources from growth.

What lessons should small business owners and entrepreneurs take from this?

Choose a distinctive name. Geographic terms alone are often not enough. For greater protection, create a fanciful or arbitrary name.

Register early. Federal trademark registration provides legal precedence and defenses that are vital in enforcement or defense.

Document your use. Keep records of things like marketing materials, sales, and brand recognition to support “acquired distinctiveness.”

Monitor and act quickly. If you spot potential conflicts, you can save trouble later by conducting a professional review early.

Ultimately, the Seattle Strong versus Nestlé clash is more than a local coffee drama – it is a vivid lesson in trademark fundamentals, showing how branding, geography, legal strategy, and even community values collide under intellectual property law. 

Whether you are a scrappy startup or a community-rooted business, your brand identity matters, and defending it can cost more than you might expect.

Have questions about your own intellectual property and branding? Get in touch.