The city of Seattle is at the center of a trademark dispute between Nestlé, a large food and drink corporation, and Seattle Strong, a smaller coffee company. Nestlé, which purchased the “Seattle’s Best” brand in 2022, is claiming that Seattle Strong’s name is too similar and may cause customer confusion. The company argues that it has spent significant amounts of money building the “Seattle’s Best” brand and that consumers may think they are buying a Nestlé product when they purchase from Seattle Strong.
Seattle Strong, which was formed in 2017 and received its trademark in 2022, focuses on cold brew drinks and has launched a GoFundMe campaign to help cover the costs of the legal battle. The company argues that its name is distinct and does not infringe on Nestlé’s trademark.
The question of whether a city name can be trademarked is a complex one. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), locations are typically considered descriptive and not unique enough to be trademarked. However, in the case of Seattle, the city’s association with coffee, thanks to companies like Seattle’s Best and Starbucks, may make it possible to trademark the name.
Nestlé’s claims of trademark infringement have sparked debate about the limits of trademark law and the potential for large corporations to bully smaller companies. If Nestlé is successful in its claim, it could set a precedent for other companies to trademark city names and limit the ability of smaller businesses to operate.
The case raises questions about the potential consequences of allowing companies to trademark city names. For example, if Nestlé is able to trademark “Seattle,” would it be able to prevent other companies from using the name, even if they are not in the same industry? What would happen if someone released a product called “Seattle’s Most Delicious Cracker”? Would Nestlé be able to use the courts to stop that company as well?
Ultimately, the outcome of the case will depend on the decision of the courts. However, it highlights the importance of trademark law and the need for companies to carefully consider their branding and naming strategies to avoid potential conflicts. The case also raises questions about the role of large corporations in shaping the business landscape and the potential for smaller companies to be squeezed out by larger competitors.