Intellectual Property: Beyond Meat Trademark Infringement Disputes

Written by Marsela Shalabi, Christian Rodriguez-Hernandez, and Nela Labuzek

Edited by Audrey Park and Anna Ramesh

Introduction to the case

In 2022, Vegadelphia Foods sued Beyond Meat, claiming copyright infringement of its trademarked slogan: "Where Great Taste Is Plant-Based." Vegadelphia argued that Beyond Meat's advertising slogans, "Great Taste, Plant-Based" and "Plant-Based, Great Taste", were so similar to Vegadelphia's wording that it could realistically confuse customers. Beyond Meat responded by claiming that their use of the word was common and that they described their product, therefore making it fair use. After a jury trial in federal court in Massachusetts in November 2025, the jury sided with Vegadelphia, finding Beyond Meat liable for trademark infringement, and awarded about $38.9 million total. The jury ordered a disgorgement of profits as a remedy, meaning that Beyond Meat gives up money earned from the infringing use. Beyond Meat has stated that it disagrees with the verdict and plans to challenge it.

The Issue

Vegadelphia is a plant-based food company with the registered slogan, 'Where Great Taste is Plant-Based.' They sued Beyond Meat, another plant-based food corporation, and Dunkin' for trademark infringement in 2022, alleging that both companies used similar slogans, such as 'Great Taste, Plant-Based,' to advertise their plant-based products. Vegadelphia's slogan was trademarked in 2015, which was many years before Dunkin' and Beyond Meat used their slogan in 2019 for their marketing campaigns. The basis of the lawsuit revolved around the claim that the slogan would likely confuse potential consumers. Dunkin' settled with Vegadelphia confidentially before trial, whereas Beyond Meat persisted with its claims that its slogans were not confusing. They invoked the fair use (an affirmative defense that can be raised in response to claims by a copyright owner that a person is infringing a copyright) defense, which is a safeguard against liability for using material without permission from the creator, to argue that it was merely using "common descriptive phrases" to aid in its promotion of plant-based products. A jury found that Beyond Meat did willfully infringe on Vegadelphia's trademark by having the likelihood of confusing potential customers and rejected the fair use defense. Beyond Meat appealed the court's decision, and it is currently under review. The case indicates that adequate protection, in the form of laws or policies, must be in place against trademark infringement. Holding violators accountable is difficult in vast industries; however, companies should take precautions to prevent incurring unnecessary costs and damaging their reputation.

Vegadelphia argued for the likelihood of confusion, as consumers would be likely to conflate Beyond Meat's slogan, Great Taste, Plant-Based, with their own Where Great Taste is Plant-Based. Vegadelphia claimed that Beyond Meat knowingly infringed on the trademark by identifying this phrase with their own product. Vegadelphia identified similarities in word structure as well as Dunkin's ads as "beyond coincidence" that consumers would associate. It was noted that in 2020 Beyond Meat's application was rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office due to potential consumer confusion. Vegadelphia claimed that Beyond Meat's commercial usage overshadowed their company, which led to their potential expansions being disrupted. Prior to this, Vegadelphia was in talks with other corporations regarding partnerships, which fell through. This was particularly damaging as it came at a time when the meat alternatives industry saw notable growth.

Beyond Meat maintained that they were unaware of Vegadelphia's 2015 trademark. Moreso, Beyond Meat's defense amounted to fair use, as they found that Vegadelphia's slogan was not distinct enough to warrant a legal issue. Beyond Meat believed that these slogans would not confuse consumers, as Great Taste, Plant-Based were common-place terms that simply described their own plant-based meat products. Beyond Meat failed to prove that there would be no confusion in the market.

As such, the jury rejected Beyond Meat's fair use defense. The jury found that Beyond Meat willfully violated Vegadelphia's trademark, and as such are liable toward $38.9 million in both actual damages and disgorged profits. Beyond Meat intends to appeal this outcome. Dunkin' settled Vegadelphia's claim earlier in 2024.

This case's outcome reinforced the distinction between descriptive and identifiable language regarding trademarked products. This verdict serves as a clear notion of the importance of due diligence regarding slogans and marketing, even for a big-name in the industry. Companies should take further caution for clearing their marketing, especially in a rapidly growing industry.