IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Cal.: Plant-based meat maker loses bid to overturn IMPOSSIBLE trademark verdict but wins punitive-damages retrial, (Jul 30, 2026)

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

Substantial evidence supported confusion and corrective-advertising damages, but willfulness alone did not establish the aggravated misconduct required for punitive damages.

A federal district court in California refused to overturn a jury’s finding that a plant-based meat maker willfully infringed trademarks owned by an apparel and nutritional-supplements business. The court preserved the jury’s $1.5 million corrective-advertising award and its earlier exceptional-case determination. However, it vacated a $1.75 million punitive-damages award and ordered a limited retrial because the evidence did not establish oppression, fraud, or malice (Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC, No. 5:21-cv-02419-BLF (N.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2026)).

Background. Impossible Foods develops and sells plant-based meat products. Its products include the Impossible Burger, Impossible Sausage, and Impossible Pork. Impossible X sells apparel and nutritional supplements. It also provides fitness and recipe information, as well as consulting and marketing services.

Impossible X owned six federal registrations for IMPOSSIBLE-formative trademarks challenged during the litigation. It began using its marks for apparel in 2011, fitness and recipe information in 2012, and nutritional supplements in 2017. Impossible Foods adopted its Impossible branding in 2015. It subsequently used IMPOSSIBLE marks on promotional apparel distributed at events and to employees. It also published an IMPOSSIBLE-branded cookbook in 2020.

Impossible Foods filed the action in 2021 after Impossible X opposed its trademark application covering recipe and cooking information. The district court initially dismissed the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision in Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC.

After the case returned to the district court, Impossible X alleged that Impossible Foods’ promotional apparel and cookbook infringed its registered marks. Impossible Foods asserted that several of Impossible X’s registrations should be canceled for abandonment or fraud. It also claimed that Impossible X’s use of its marks on nutritional supplements infringed Impossible Foods’ rights.

A jury rejected all of Impossible Foods’ claims following a March 2026 trial. It found that the promotional apparel and cookbook willfully infringed Impossible X’s marks and awarded $1.5 million for corrective advertising. After finding that Impossible Foods acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, the jury added $1.75 million in punitive damages. The court later entered a permanent injunction and designated the litigation an exceptional case.

Likely confusion.Applying the factors established in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348–49 (9th Cir. 1979), the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the infringement verdict. The parties’ marks were virtually identical. Their promotional activities also overlapped on social media, while Impossible Foods’ promotional apparel closely resembled apparel sold by Impossible X.

Evidence further showed that Impossible Foods encountered Impossible X’s branding during its rebranding process. Employees circulated an article displaying Impossible X’s marks before discussing T-shirts bearing quotations that used the word “impossible.” The jury could consider that evidence when assessing both likely confusion and willfulness.

The court rejected Impossible Foods’ argument that Impossible X needed to identify consumers who mistakenly purchased or declined to purchase apparel or cookbooks. Actual confusion represented only one part of the broader analysis and was not essential to an infringement finding. Witnesses testified that people repeatedly mistook Impossible X apparel for Impossible Foods merchandise. That testimony supplied some evidence of reverse confusion and supported the jury’s verdict when considered with the remaining factors.

Advertising award. The $1.5 million corrective-advertising award also survived. Citing Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi, 673 F.3d 1105, 1112–13 (9th Cir. 2012), the court explained that the Lanham Act did not require expert testimony or precise empirical calculations when reasonable evidence supported actual damages.

Impossible X’s founder testified that the business’s brand had once supported a valuation between $15 million and $25 million, but was worth little by the time of trial. The jury could credit that testimony and award an amount substantially below the estimated loss in value. Impossible Foods did not present contrary valuation or causation evidence. It also declined to cross-examine the founder after Impossible X reopened its case to provide additional valuation testimony.

Punitive retrial. Impossible Foods could not obtain judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages because it had not challenged the sufficiency of the oppression, fraud, or malice evidence in its preverdict motion. Its constitutional challenge also failed because the punitive award was only 1.167 times the compensatory award and did not exceed constitutional limits.

Rule 59 nevertheless allowed the court to weigh the evidence independently. Awareness of Impossible X’s marks supported willful infringement, but the evidence established no more than negligence or recklessness. It did not show conduct sufficiently despicable to support punitive damages under California law.

Impossible X also repeatedly invoked Impossible Foods’ lawful litigation activities. Those references included its filing of the declaratory-judgment action and its assertion of trademark invalidity defenses. The court found that this evidence likely inflamed the jury and filled the evidentiary gap concerning aggravated misconduct. Allowing the punitive award to stand would therefore cause a manifest injustice.

Attorney fees. The exceptional-case determination remained intact. Referencing SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., 839 F.3d 1179, 1180–81 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (per curiam), the court found that Impossible Foods’ abandonment defense and affirmative infringement claims remained exceptionally weak as presented at trial. Impossible X may seek a separate determination of the recoverable fees.

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

Judge: Freeman, B.

Attorneys: Gayle Roxanne Elings (Davis Wright Tremaine LLP) for Impossible Foods Inc. Adam Seth Cashman (Braunhagey & Borden LLP) for Impossible X LLC.

Companies: Impossible Foods Inc.; Impossible X LLC

MainStory: TopStory Trademark CaliforniaNews GCNNews