Federal Judge Allows Union Trademark Fight Over Starbucks Name and Logo to Proceed

A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled on October 2, 2026, that Workers United may continue using the Starbucks name and a modified version of its logo as the court case moves forward. U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson denied Starbucks' motion to dismiss the union's lawsuit, which seeks a formal declaration that Workers United's branding does not infringe on Starbucks' trademarks. The case raises important questions about how trademark rights interact with nominative fair use, particularly when employees organize under a company's name.

The Dispute

Workers United, the union representing more than 12,000 Starbucks employees across the country, filed suit in April 2026 after an earlier version of the dispute was dismissed without prejudice in 2025. The union uses the name "Starbucks Workers United" and a modified version of the Starbucks siren logo that replaces the mermaid with a worker holding a raised fist and a coffee cup. Starbucks alleges that this branding infringes its registered trademarks and misleads consumers into believing the union's activities are endorsed by the company.

The dispute traces back to October 2023, when a local Workers United account posted "Solidarity with Palestine!" on social media shortly after the October 7 attacks in Israel. Starbucks argued the post, which appeared alongside Starbucks branding, led customers to attribute political statements to the company. Both sides filed lawsuits, reached a Memorandum of Understanding in 2024, and then refiled their cases in 2026 after negotiations stalled.

Why This Ruling Matters

The court's decision to allow the case to proceed centers on the legal concept of nominative fair use. Workers United argues that it uses the Starbucks name and a recognizable version of its logo to identify itself as a union organizing Starbucks employees, not to suggest that Starbucks endorses the union. In trademark law, nominative fair use allows a party to use another's trademark to refer to that party's actual products or services, as long as the use does not create consumer confusion about sponsorship or endorsement.

Trademark infringement claims require proof that consumers are likely to be confused about the source or sponsorship of a product or service. The court found that Workers United had done enough to show an actual legal controversy exists, meaning both sides will now present evidence on whether the union's use of Starbucks' marks crosses the line from identifying the employer to implying corporate endorsement.

Key Takeaway for Business Owners

This case highlights an important tension in trademark law. A trademark gives its owner broad rights to control how the mark is used in commerce, but those rights have limits. Competitors, critics, and in this case, employee organizations may use a trademark to accurately describe or reference the trademark owner's products or services under the nominative fair use doctrine. Business owners should understand that owning a trademark does not give absolute control over every use of the brand name. When someone uses your mark to truthfully describe their relationship to your business, whether as a reseller, service provider, or employee group, the analysis shifts from simple infringement to a more nuanced fair use evaluation. Companies should work with an attorney to understand these boundaries and develop trademark enforcement strategies that account for permitted uses.

Whether you are protecting your brand or navigating the boundaries of trademark use, understanding your rights is essential. Schedule a free consultation with Diorio IP Law Group to discuss your trademark strategy and ensure your brand is protected.