Plant-Based, High Stakes: Beyond Meat’s $39 Million Slogan Setback

The verdict, returned on November 24, found that Beyond Meat’s slogans, “Great Taste, Plant-Based” and “Plant-Based, Great Taste,” infringed Vegadelphia’s federally registered trademark, “Where Great Taste is Plant-Based.”

Vegadelphia, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, alternative meat company operating since 2004, registered its “Where Great Taste is Plant-Based” trademark in 2015 for plant-based meat substitutes. In 2019, Beyond Meat began using the slogan “Plant-Based, Great Taste.” Later, in partnership with Dunkin Donuts, Beyond Meat launched a national campaign featuring the tagline “Great Taste, Plant-Based” to promote Dunkin’s breakfast sandwich made with Beyond Meat’s plant-based products.

Vegadelphia sued Beyond Meat and Dunkin in 2022, alleging the companies rolled out their advertising campaign before Beyond Meat applied in March 2020 to register “Plant-Based, Great Taste” and with knowledge of Vegadelphia’s senior “Where Great Taste is Plant-Based” mark.

Beyond Meat denied early knowledge, claiming it first learned of Vegadelphia’s prior rights in May 2020 upon receiving a cease-and-desist letter. Additionally, Beyond Meat argued that its slogans “fairly and accurately describe qualities of [its] plant-based products.” Beyond Meat abandoned its application to register “Plant-Based, Great Taste” after the US Patent and Trademark Office rejected it due to a likelihood of confusion with Vegadelphia’s existing registration.

Dunkin reached a confidential settlement with Vegadelphia prior to trial.

Key Pretrial Ruling

Several weeks before trial, the court denied Beyond Meat’s motion for summary judgment in which Beyond Meat argued it was making “fair use” of common descriptive phrases — “plant based” and “great taste” — rather than trademark use. The fair use defense can shield a party from liability if it uses the allegedly infringing terms in good faith to merely describe its products, rather than to indicate their source.[1]

The judge found factual disputes for the jury to resolve, including questions about Beyond Meat’s good faith and its knowledge of Vegadelphia’s prior registration. The court also noted that Beyond Meat’s own efforts to register “Plant-Based, Great Taste” undermined its claim that it was using the phrase descriptively, rather than as a brand identifier. The court further found that Beyond Meat failed to demonstrate that there was no likelihood of confusion between the parties’ slogans, despite Beyond Meat’s appeals to the companies’ distinct markets and the presence of corporate logos alongside the slogans on marketing materials. As a result, both the likelihood of confusion and fair use defense questions were left for the jury.

The Jury Verdict

During the trial, Vegadelphia argued that Beyond Meat “flooded the market” with confusingly similar slogans and had internally discussed continuing their use despite assurances that it would stop. Beyond Meat, on the other hand, contended that its slogans were “not confusing to a sophisticated, or even an unsophisticated, consumer.”

After a 10-day trial, the jury found Beyond Meat willfully infringed Vegadelphia’s trademark. The jury rejected Beyond Meat’s fair use defense, as well as its claims that Vegadelphia’s mark was weak and that consumers were unlikely to be confused. Notably, the jury concluded that Beyond Meat continued to use the slogans even after learning of Vegadelphia’s senior rights, including after receiving the cease-and-desist correspondence. The court awarded Vegadelphia $38.9 million in damages, calculated as $23.5 million in actual damages and $15.4 million in disgorged profits. This award exceeded the $36.75 million in total damages that Vegadelphia had sought.

Beyond Meat has indicated its intent to seek judicial review of the decision and appeal of the verdict.

Practical Considerations for Brand Owners

This case underscores the importance of thorough trademark clearance and risk assessment before adopting new slogans or branding, even when they appear descriptive or are used for short-term, cross-branded, or limited promotions. Businesses should avoid applying to register a slogan if adopting the position that it merely describes their goods and services, as doing so may later undermine their ability to rely on a fair use defense in an infringement dispute. This verdict is also a reminder that prelitigation business decisions can influence a jury’s views on good faith and willfulness, dramatically increasing potential liability.

Overall, the Beyond Meat verdict serves as a cautionary tale for companies operating in the food and beverage industry and other crowded markets. Businesses should ensure robust trademark clearance procedures and respond quickly to potential conflicts to mitigate litigation risks and avoid costly damages awards.

The case is Vegadelphia Foods v. Beyond Meat Inc, US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:23-cv-10690.

Additional research and writing from Corinne Taranov, a law clerk in ArentFox Schiff’s New York office.