US Burger Chain Grills English Pub for Allegedly Infringing “Smashed Burger” Trademark
As reported by The Drinks Business, US-based hamburger restaurant chain, Smashburger, recently issued a cease and desist letter against The Colebrook Inn, a one-location pub in Plympton, England, asserting unauthorized use and infringement of the chain’s “smashed burger” trademark.
In hopes of increasing their takeaway offerings during the COVID-19 lockdown in England, The Colebrook Inn added “Howey’s Smashed Burgers” to its menu. The pub created a logo for its new burger menu and sought trademark protection through a formal application to the Intellectual Property Office (the “IPO”). While waiting for approval from the IPO, the pub was issued a letter from Smashburger requesting removal of any derivative of the phrase “smashed burger” from its branding.
Smashburger claims that the pub’s “product and logo is highly similar to Smashburger’s logo and branding”. It is reported that, in the cease and desist letter, counsel to Smashburger wrote, “[Smashburger] has taken very seriously the protection of its brand and … in light of the scope of our client's trademark rights and its reputation and goodwill, your use of the infringing mark in relation to services identical to those covered by our client's will create confusion”. Smashburger asserts that the pub infringes its rights pursuant to section 10(2)(b) of the UK’s Trade Marks Act, 1994, which prohibits use of a sign where the sign is used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trademark is registered and where there exists a likelihood of confusion.
In response, Rob Naylor, manager of The Colebrook Inn, reportedly stated that “a smashed burger is only a process of cooking, not a brand”.
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@hermez777
Authors: Mark Leonard and Andrew Patel, 2020/2021 Articling Student-at-law
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…