Every founder asks it once, usually right after deciding on a name they're attached to: if I use this, can I get sued? The legal answer is always “maybe,” which doesn’t help anyone. What does help is looking at how courts have actually decided the cases that reached them. The five below were chosen to span the outcome space, from established holders winning to small parties surviving on geographic priority, with a fair-use parody and a multi-decade saga thrown in for the awkward edges.
The legal framework underneath all of them is likelihood of confusion, the same test that the previous post walks through in detail. When that test gets applied to real facts, it produces results founders find counterintuitive in both directions.
1. Polaroid v. Polarad (1961): the case that built the test, while the plaintiff lost
Polaroid Corporation, then America’s most famous instant-camera company, sued Polarad Electronics, which made microwave generating equipment and television-studio gear. Polaroid had been accumulating trademark registrations since 1936, with 22 of them on file by 1956, and first became aware of Polarad in 1945. Polarad had organized as a partnership in December 1944 and incorporated under variations of the name over the following years. The two companies operated in adjacent but distinct corners of the electronics industry for over a decade before Polaroid finally sued.
The district court dismissed Polaroid’s claims, finding both that there was no adequate showing of likely confusion and that Polaroid had waited too long to act (laches). The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in February 1961, with the reasoning that Polaroid’s delay barred relief so long as Polarad’s use remained as far removed from Polaroid’s primary fields of activity as it had been. Polaroid, despite being the dominant senior mark holder by every measure, lost.
What survived the loss is the eight-factor test Judge Friendly used in his analysis. The “Polaroid factors” remain the law in the Second Circuit today: strength of the senior mark, similarity of the marks, proximity of the products, likelihood the senior holder bridges the gap into the junior’s market, evidence of actual confusion, the junior’s good faith, the quality of the junior’s product, and the sophistication of the consumers. They got laid out while the case was being decided against the party invoking them.
The practical takeaway is twofold. A trademark conflict analysis is not “are the names similar,” it’s a multi-axis weighing in which similar names sometimes coexist (Delta Air Lines and Delta Faucet are the textbook example, covered in the two-companies-share-a-name post). And if you do hold a strong mark and someone starts using a similar one, sleeping on the situation for a decade is its own way of losing.
Citation: Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961)
2. Apple Computer v. Apple Corps (1978 to 2007): the saga
Apple Corps, the Beatles’ record label, sued Apple Computer in 1978. They settled in 1981 for around $80,000 and an agreement that Apple Computer would stay out of the music business.
Apple Computer did not stay out of the music business. They added audio capabilities to the Macintosh through the late 1980s, and in 1991 the parties settled again, this time for around $26.5 million. The 1991 agreement redrew the lines: Apple Corps got the rights to use the Apple name on “creative works whose principal content is music,” while Apple Computer was barred from using it on “physical media delivering pre-recorded content” but allowed to use it on “goods or services... used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content.” That phrasing was either a careful compromise or a loaded gun, depending on what came next.
What came next was the iTunes Music Store. Apple Corps sued for the third time in September 2003, arguing iTunes broke the 1991 deal. The trial opened in March 2006 in the English High Court, which ruled on 8 May 2006 that Apple Computer’s use of the name in connection with iTunes fell within the 1991 agreement and didn’t breach the trademark.
Apple Corps appealed. Before the appeal was heard, on 5 February 2007, the parties announced a global settlement: Apple Inc. would own all the Apple trademarks outright, with Apple Corps licensing certain marks back for continued use on its music releases. Newspaper accounts at the time reported the price at around $500 million, though the actual settlement terms have never been officially disclosed.
The lesson for anyone with a partial settlement on a name dispute is that the agreement only sets the terms of the next dispute. When the parties have meaningfully unequal resources, the side with deeper pockets tends to eventually consolidate the rights, regardless of who used the name first.
Citation: Apple Corps v Apple Computer (overview with sources)
3. Burger King of Mattoon (1968): the geographic carveout
Gene and Betty Hoots had been running a small drive-in in Mattoon, Illinois since 1952, when they bought the local Frigid Queen ice cream shop. Gene added hamburgers and fries in 1954. They adopted the name Burger King around 1957, when they fixed up a two-car parking garage to expand the restaurant, and registered the mark with the State of Illinois in 1959.
Burger King Corporation, the Florida chain, opened its first restaurant in 1954 and began expanding nationally. When it opened its first Illinois location in Skokie in 1961, it claimed nationwide rights to the name. The Hoots sued.
The Seventh Circuit ruled in 1968 that Burger King Corporation held nationwide priority everywhere except within a 20-mile radius of Mattoon, where the Hoots’ state registration predated the federal one. Within that circle, the Hoots keep the name; outside it, the chain does. Both arrangements are now permanent, and the Mattoon Burger King has continued operating ever since under a series of local owners. The Florida chain operates everywhere else.
This is the cleanest illustration of why federal registration matters and state registration only goes so far. A federal filing would have given the Hoots full national rights. State filing got them a 32-kilometer circle.
Citation: Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots, 403 F.2d 904 (7th Cir. 1968)
4. Starbucks v. Sambuck’s Coffeehouse (2005): family-name defenses
Samantha Lundberg, whose maiden name was Sam Buck, acquired an existing Astoria, Oregon coffee shop (then called the Astoria Coffeehouse) in October 2000 and rebranded it as Sambuck’s Coffeehouse. Astoria is a small coastal town hours from any major Starbucks-owned location at the time, and the name was a deliberate play on the founder’s own. None of that mattered.
Starbucks sued for trademark infringement and dilution. On 1 December 2005, Judge Ancer Haggerty of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled the Sambuck’s mark likely to cause confusion, found Lundberg to have been “willingly infringing,” and ordered the name changed. The family-name origin didn’t save it: the court found that “Sam Bucks” was a nickname, not the actual legal name, and that consumers were in fact confused by the similarity.
Two things to take from this. The “it’s my actual name” defense is not the ironclad protection founders sometimes treat it as. Courts weigh the family-name interest against the strength of the senior mark, and a top-100 global brand tends to win those balancing tests. Geographic distance, similarly, protects against competitive harm but not against infringement liability. The likelihood-of-confusion test asks whether a hypothetical consumer encountering both marks would be confused, not whether actual consumers in one small town are. Federal trademark protection is national in scope, and “we’re tiny and far away” is an answer to the wrong question.
Citation: Starbucks Corp. v. Lundberg, No. CV 02-948-HA (D. Or. Dec. 1, 2005)
5. Louis Vuitton v. My Other Bag (2016): when parody wins
My Other Bag, Inc. sold canvas totes printed with cartoon-style images of designer handbags, including ones that echoed Louis Vuitton’s monogram pattern. The reverse side of each tote was printed, in large letters, with the slogan “My Other Bag is a Louis Vuitton.” Louis Vuitton sued in 2014 for trademark infringement, dilution by blurring, and copyright infringement.
The Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for My Other Bag in early 2016, finding the totes to be parody and therefore fair use under both the Lanham Act and the federal dilution statute. The Second Circuit affirmed in 2017. The reasoning rested on two points: the totes were obviously joking (the entire point was that the canvas bag was specifically not a Louis Vuitton), and no reasonable consumer would believe Louis Vuitton was selling them.
The caveat matters more than the verdict. Parody-as-fair-use is a narrow doctrine, applying only when the secondary use is clearly humorous, doesn’t compete in the same market, and source confusion is implausible. The court itself was explicit that “the fact that the joke on Louis Vuitton’s luxury image is gentle does not preclude it from being a parody,” meaning the joke doesn’t have to be vicious, but it does have to clearly be a joke. A startup naming itself “Apple Sour” and selling phones doesn’t get this defense, because nothing about it reads as parody to a consumer. My Other Bag worked because the joke was the product.
What this means for picking a name
These cases share one practical lesson: name-conflict outcomes are produced by a multi-factor legal test applied to specific facts, not by simple rules like “different industry, you’re fine” or “similar word, expect a lawsuit.” A few patterns emerge across the five.
Sound-alike names in the same product category carry more risk than founders typically assume. Sambuck’s was hundreds of miles from any Starbucks, and the name was the founder’s actual surname; the court didn’t care. State-level priority is a real defense, but a narrow one: federal registration gets national rights, state registration gets you a 20-mile circle. Parody and commentary are defenses, but only for genuinely parodic uses; cosmetic similarity to a parody doesn’t qualify. And the strongest holders tend to win on the merits or to outlast everyone else on resources. Apple Inc. eventually consolidated the name from Apple Corps, Starbucks beat a sole proprietor on a family-name defense, and the doctrine is structurally built to give famous marks broader protection.
Before committing to a name, run it through the trademark checks on this site. USPTO, EUIPO, Companies House, SEC EDGAR. A clean result on all four isn’t a guarantee, but a hit on any one of them is a signal to take seriously. The practical lockdown guide covers what to do once you’ve picked.
Ready to check a name? Run it through dibbed.dev →