IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Cal.: Plant-based food maker gets partial summary judgment in trademark dispute with fitness brand, (Nov 6, 2025)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The court found unresolved factual disputes regarding consumer confusion and potential harm to brand goodwill.

The federal district court in San Jose, California, granted partial summary judgment in favor of Impossible Foods Inc. in its ongoing trademark dispute with Impossible X LLC, while denying Impossible X’s cross-motion. The court ruled that Impossible X, a Texas-based fitness brand, could not recover reputational damages or rely on any equitable defenses such as laches, waiver, acquiescence, estoppel, or unclean hands. However, it permitted Impossible X to proceed with its claims for corrective advertising and punitive damages. The court reasoned that material factual disputes persisted—particularly concerning the likelihood of consumer confusion between the competing “IMPOSSIBLE” marks and the degree of potential harm to Impossible X’s goodwill—making full summary judgment inappropriate (Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC, No. 5:21-cv-02419-BLF (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff, Impossible Foods Inc., is a California-based producer of plant-based meat alternatives sold under the IMPOSSIBLE brand. The defendant, Impossible X LLC, founded by entrepreneur Joel Runyon, operates a personal development and fitness brand centered around the concept of “doing the impossible.” Through its website, blogs, and social media platforms, Impossible X sells motivational apparel, nutritional powders, and performance-related products under the “IMPOSSIBLE” theme.

Impossible Foods owns several federal trademark registrations, including U.S. Reg. No. 5,370,337 for IMPOSSIBLE (first use November 3, 2016) for catering services and U.S. Reg. No. 5,459,255 (first use June 27, 2016) for vegetable-based meat substitutes. It also asserts common-law rights over its stylized IMPOSSIBLE logo.

Impossible X holds U.S. Reg. No. 5,620,625 for IMPOSSIBLE (first use September 1, 2011) for apparel and U.S. Reg. No. 5,603,025 for IMPOSSIBLE FITNESS (first use January 24, 2014), covering clothing and performance gear. Its branding uses the word “IMPOSSIBLE” with a strike-through line to symbolize surpassing limits.

The dispute arose after Impossible Foods expanded its IMPOSSIBLE brand into cookbooks, merchandise, and online cooking services. Impossible X sent a cease-and-desist letter in November 2020, alleging infringement and opposing Impossible Foods’ new trademark applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Impossible Foods responded by filing suit in April 2021, seeking declaratory relief and later adding claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and California law.

Impossible X counterclaimed, alleging that Impossible Foods’ promotional goods and cookbooks infringed its apparel trademarks. Impossible X also asserted several equitable defenses—laches, waiver, acquiescence, estoppel, and unclean hands—and sought damages for lost reputation, corrective advertising, and punitive relief. Both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Corrective advertising damages. The court denied Impossible Foods’ motion to dismiss the defendants’ claim for corrective advertising damages. Citing Adray v. Adry-Mart, Inc., 76 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 1995), the court explained that corrective advertising compensates a trademark owner for costs incurred to counteract confusion caused by another’s infringement. Testimony from Runyon and expert reports from Dr. Robert Palmatier and Dr. David Vanderhart suggested that Impossible X’s online visibility and brand perception declined following Impossible Foods’ commercial expansion.

Reputational damages. Impossible X’s claim for reputational damages was dismissed because it failed to provide the computation required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Following Goodman v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2011), and Int’l Metaphysical Ministry, Inc. v. Wisdom of Heart Church, 2022 WL 19691043 (N.D. Cal. 2022), the court held that the omission precluded recovery. The court found the late disclosure prejudicial and excluded any related testimony or expert analysis. Summary judgment was therefore granted to Impossible Foods on this issue.

Punitive damages. Impossible Foods’ motion to dismiss punitive damages was denied. The court reasoned that a jury could infer malicious intent from a larger entity’s potential infringement on a smaller business’s established mark. Citing Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1004 (2009), and QS Wholesale, Inc. v. World Marketing, Inc., 2014 WL 12586120 (C.D. Cal. 2014), the court concluded that the evidence, if credited, could satisfy the statutory standard of oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code § 3294.

Laches. Impossible X’s laches defense failed. The court found that Impossible Foods’ claims were timely because the alleged infringement occurred in 2022, and the lawsuit was filed within two years. Under Eat Right Foods Ltd. v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 880 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018), a four-year period is generally the presumptive limit for asserting laches in Lanham Act claims. The court also found no showing of undue delay or prejudice to Impossible X, referencing Adidas America, Inc. v. Payless ShoeSource, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (D. Or. 2008).

Waiver and acquiescence. The court struck down Impossible X’s defenses of waiver and acquiescence. Drawing on Lynch v. California Coastal Commission, 3 Cal. 5th 470 (2017), and Eat Right Foods, the court explained that waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right, while acquiescence demands active consent to the infringing conduct. Impossible X failed to demonstrate any affirmative acts or communications by Impossible Foods indicating consent or intentional waiver. Passive silence or delayed enforcement was deemed legally insufficient.

Estoppel and unclean hands. Impossible X’s equitable estoppel and unclean hands defenses also failed because the court found no evidence that Impossible Foods engaged in conduct intended to induce reliance or that Impossible X detrimentally relied on any such conduct. Regarding unclean hands, the court held that Impossible Foods' actions did not constitute inequitable behavior directly related to the claims at issue, applying the standard established in Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002).

Likelihood of confusion. In denying Impossible X’s cross-motion for summary judgment, the court held that factual disputes precluded dismissal of Impossible Foods’ infringement claims. Applying the factors from AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979), the court noted that while the parties marketed distinct goods—plant-based food versus nutritional supplements—both used similar marks and targeted overlapping consumers interested in health and lifestyle. Expert testimony and marketing evidence suggested potential consumer confusion regarding the source or affiliation. The court emphasized, following Dreamwerks Production Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1998), that the similarity of marks and marketing channels can outweigh product differences. As in Interstellar Starship Services Ltd. v. Epix Inc., 184 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1999), the question of confusion was deemed “inherently factual” and unsuitable for resolution on summary judgment.

The Case is No. 5:21-cv-02419-BLF.

Judge: Freeman, B.

Attorneys: Erica Chanin (Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP) for Impossible Foods Inc. Adam Seth Cashman (Braunhagey & Borden LLP) for Impossible X LLC.

Companies: Impossible Foods Inc.; Impossible X LLC

Cases: Trademark CaliforniaNews GCNNews