IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Mass.: Beyond Meat cuts $23.5M trademark damages verdict to $37,500 but disgorgement award stands, (Sep 21, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The plant-based meat company defeated almost all actual damages awarded over its infringing advertising taglines, but remained liable for $15.4 million in profits.

A federal district court in Massachusetts has slashed a $23.5 million jury award of actual damages against a plant-based meat company to $37,500, finding that the trademark owner’s multimillion-dollar lost-business theories rested on speculation and lacked sufficient evidence of causation. However, the court preserved the jury’s advisory award of $15.4 million in disgorged profits after the jury found that the company’s use of the challenged phrases infringed the registered “Where Great Taste is Plant Based” mark and was willful. The court declined the trademark owner’s requests for additional disgorgement, enhanced damages, and prejudgment interest (Sonate Corp. v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-10690-IT (D. Mass. Sep. 18, 2026)).

Plant-based food trademark dispute. Sonate Corporation (Sonate), doing business as Vegadelphia Foods, owns the “Where Great Taste is Plant Based” trademark and sells plant-based food products. Beyond Meat (Beyond) used “PLANT BASED GREAT TASTE” beginning in 2019 and also proposed “GREAT TASTE PLANT BASED” for a collaboration with Dunkin’ Donuts.

Beyond personnel discovered Sonate’s registered mark in 2019 but continued using the challenged phrases. Beyond later applied to register “PLANT BASED GREAT TASTE,” but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused registration in June 2020 based in part on a likelihood of confusion with Sonate’s mark.

Sonate sent Beyond a cease-and-desist letter in May 2020. Beyond then directed personnel to discontinue the phrases, promptly replaced digital uses, and began removing physical marketing materials. Some materials remained in circulation into early 2021.

Sonate sued for trademark infringement. Following a two-week trial, the jury found Beyond’s use of both phrases infringed Sonate’s mark and was willful. It awarded Sonate $23.5 million in actual damages and recommended disgorgement of $15.4 million in Beyond’s profits.

Beyond sought judgment as a matter of law on actual damages, while Sonate sought an additional $10 million to $30 million through enhanced damages and further disgorgement, as well as prejudgment interest.

Lost-business damages were too speculative. The court agreed with Beyond that nearly all of the $23.5 million actual-damages award lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Under Cashmere & Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute v. Saks Fifth Avenue, 284 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2002), a trademark owner seeking damages must demonstrate that the infringement actually harmed its business. A precise showing is unnecessary, however, and diverted sales can establish the necessary harm under Quabaug Rubber Co. v. Fabiano Shoe Co., 567 F.2d 154 (1st Cir. 1977).

Sonate cleared that relatively low threshold for losses suffered by its existing business. Its sales declined from approximately $122,000 in 2018 to $99,000 in 2019 and $66,000 in 2020. A co-owner attributed the decline to Beyond’s infringement. Although Beyond pointed to COVID-19 and other possible explanations, the evidence was minimally sufficient to permit the jury to find causation. The record supported no more than $37,500 in lost profits, however.

The much larger award necessarily depended on Sonate’s asserted loss of a proposed expansion called “Vegadelphia 2.0.” Sonate had discussed joining with an established food manufacturer and another business partner to expand production and distribution. One proposed structure contemplated Sonate receiving royalties and 25 percent of the proceeds from a future sale of the venture. A potential partner had suggested the business might ultimately achieve a $100 million valuation.

The court found those projections too uncertain. No final contract was executed, material terms remained unresolved, no market-ready new product existed, packaging had not been developed, and the marketing effort had progressed only to the beginnings of an outline. The $100 million valuation also emerged from an early questionnaire rather than a detailed financial analysis.

Relying on Loan Modification Group, Inc. v. Reed, 694 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2012), the court concluded that damages could not rest on speculation about whether the proposed business would have materialized and produced future sales.

Causation presented an independent problem. Beyond began withdrawing the infringing phrases after the May 2020 cease-and-desist letter, yet negotiations over Vegadelphia 2.0 continued well afterward. Evidence indicated that the prospective partners became concerned principally about the distraction and risk associated with Sonate’s contemplated litigation against Beyond, rather than the underlying infringement itself. The court therefore reduced actual damages to $37,500.

$15.4 million disgorgement preserved. Beyond fared differently on disgorgement. The jury had found $109 million of Beyond’s profits attributable to its use of “PLANT BASED GREAT TASTE,” found the companies directly competed, and recommended that $15.4 million be disgorged. Although the dollar recommendation was advisory because disgorgement is equitable relief, the court was bound by the jury’s underlying factual findings.

The court adopted the $15.4 million recommendation as a rough measure of Sonate’s harm. Under Tamko Roofing Products, Inc. v. Ideal Roofing Co., 282 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2002), an accounting of profits may serve as a rough measure of harm, prevent unjust enrichment, or deter willful infringement. Once direct competition and infringement are established, the infringer also bears the burden of demonstrating appropriate limits on the profits attributable to that competition.

But those principles did not justify Sonate’s request for still more of Beyond’s profits. The companies differed dramatically in scale. Sonate sold principally plant-based chicken and steak products to four customers and spent very little on marketing, while Beyond operated nationally through thousands of retail outlets and offered a much broader product portfolio.

There also was no evidence of actual consumer confusion, or that Beyond selected the phrases to capitalize on Sonate’s goodwill. Although the jury found willful infringement, Beyond stopped deploying the challenged phrases after receiving the cease-and-desist letter. Awarding additional profits would therefore create a windfall and operate as a penalty prohibited by the Lanham Act.

For similar reasons, the court refused to enhance Sonate’s actual damages despite the willfulness finding. Beyond’s conduct did not warrant additional compensation after the $15.4 million disgorgement award.

Finally, the court denied prejudgment interest. It found that 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) does not expressly authorize prejudgment interest, while the neighboring counterfeit provision, Section 1117(b), expressly does. Even assuming interest could be awarded under Section 1117(a), the circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional to warrant it.

Beyond, therefore, succeeded in reducing the jury’s $23.5 million actual-damages verdict to $37,500, but the court left Sonate with $15.4 million in disgorged profits, producing a total monetary recovery of $15,437,500.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-10690-IT.

Judge: Talwani, I.

Attorneys: Ben L. Wagner (Troutman Pepper Locke LLP) for Sonate Corp. d/b/a Vegadelphia Foods. Andrew T. O'Connor (Goulston & Storrs) for Beyond Meat, Inc.

Companies: Sonate Corp. d/b/a Vegadelphia Foods; Beyond Meat, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Trademark MassachusettsNews GCNNews