According to Reuters and other media, a federal judge in Pennsylvania on 2 October 2026 denied Starbucks' motion to dismiss a union's lawsuit, so the case will proceed. Workers United, the union that represents thousands of Starbucks employees, brought the suit asking the court to declare that its use of the name Starbucks Workers United and of an adapted Starbucks logo featuring a raised fist does not infringe Starbucks' trade marks. According to reports, Starbucks argued that a memorandum of understanding signed by the parties in 2024 meant there was no live controversy when the union sued in April; Judge Michael Baylson disagreed and allowed the union to pursue its declaratory action.
It must be stressed that this is a procedural step: the court has not decided whether the union's use of the name and logo is lawful or infringing.
According to reports, the dispute goes back to a 2023 social media post by a local union account that Starbucks says led customers to attribute political statements to the company; earlier lawsuits between the parties were withdrawn after the memorandum of understanding and refiled after negotiations stalled. The union argues that its name and logo are nominative use that simply identifies it as an employee organisation.
An employee organisation needs to say which company's workers it represents, while the company wants to control the use of its name and logo; how to tell identification and social expression apart from source-confusing use of a sign is what makes the case worth watching.
J&C notes that companies dealing with the use of their names and logos by employee organisations, distributors or fan communities should distinguish name use needed to state an identity from adapted logos, merchandise and other uses more likely to cause confusion about source, and set separate rules and responses for each; employee organisations and other third parties should make their own identity clear in their names and logo designs, so that the public does not think their statements or goods come from or are endorsed by the company.
Source: www.tradingview.com | hoodline.com | news.bloomberglaw.com
