[co-author: Kristin Wells]
Does the sale of promotional clothing products turn a vodka and bourbon company into a fashion retailer? How much weight should be given to overlap in “channels of trade” when two companies sell certain products online but are in different core industries? These issues are front and center in a declaratory judgment action filed by Trippy Goat, a Maryland-based spirits company, against online apparel resale shop 1661, Inc., known as “GOAT.” The dispute highlights questions about branding, market overlap, trademark enforcement strategies, and questions how much the lines have blurred when analyzing trade channels for e-commerce.
Trippy Goat’s complaint, filed this month in Maryland federal district court, requests a declaration that its branding – including the word mark “Trippy Goat,” a goat head logo, and the taglines “IT’S ALL ABOUT THE GOAT” and “GO FOR THE GOAT,” used on its products as well as T-shirts, hats and other promotional merchandise – does not infringe GOAT’s federally registered trademarks. GOAT, operator of a popular sneaker and streetwear online marketplace, previously sent a cease-and-desist letter and filed a trademark opposition, arguing Trippy Goat’s marks could confuse consumers.
Trippy Goat says the two companies could not be more different. One sells vodka and bourbon, the other sells sneakers and apparel. Trippy Goat’s branding is a play on the farm animal, while GOAT’s name is the increasingly popular acronym for “Greatest Of All Time.”
The complaint also accuses GOAT of trademark bullying, pointing to 88 trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings the retailer has filed against other goat-themed brands since April 2023. Trippy Goat argues that GOAT is trying to claim ownership of a common word that is used by many businesses across different industries. Beyond defending its own brand, Trippy Goat asks the court to cancel some of GOAT’s trademark registrations, claiming they are not being used for all goods and services listed.
This case raises questions that could influence subsequent disputes and rulings. How significant are trade channels in today’s e-commerce world? When does aggressive brand protection cross into anticompetitive behavior? How should trademark law adapt to new marketplace realities where category lines are blurred more than ever before? As more businesses expand into lifestyle and apparel – and offer their products and services on major e-commerce platforms – disputes like this one are likely to become more common.
For both startups and established brands, this case is a reminder to consider how trademarks might be viewed across different sectors and the importance of clearance prior to adoption of marks, considering expansion of services in filing strategies, conducting regular review and diligence on brand enforcement, and regular check-ins to ensure protection for how the business is likely to expand its goods and services in the future.
[View source.]
