Chobani hits back at Danone in trademark infringement case

Chobani has fired back at Danone in a highly-publicized trademark infringement lawsuit by claiming the global food and beverage giant is ‘weaponizing trademark law against a superior competitor’. In July 2025, Danone sued Chobani for mimicking the branding and packaging of its SToK ready-to-drink (RTD) coffee brand. In a complaint filed with a New York district court, the French multi-national claimed one of Chobani’s La Colombe cold coffee products deliberately uses SToK’s ‘bright & mellow’ slogan on-pack and has changed its packaging to mimic that of SToK. These actions would ‘inevitably cause consumer confusion’ and ‘cause severe and irreparable harm to Danone’ which ‘has suffered irreparable injury’, according to the complaint. Danone is trying to stop Chobani from using ‘bright & mellow” and is also seeking monetary damages. But in a motion to dismiss filed last week, Chobani wants Danone’s complaint tossed, alleging that the mark ‘bright & mellow’ is too generic to be protectable by law. Chobani’s motion to dismiss describes Danone’s lawsuit as ‘an opportunistic attempt to weaponize trademark law against a superior competitor’. “Chobani has rapidly emerged as one of the most successful players in the ready-to-drink coffee market through its La Colombe brand, offering consumers high-quality products that compete directly with Danone’s STōK products,” the motion reads. “Rather than compete in the market, Danone seeks to hamstring its rival in the courtroom – asserting trademark theories that courts in this Circuit have repeatedly rejected as a matter of black-letter law.” Generic descriptors ‘cannot be monopolized’, Chobani’s defense argues, adding that La Colombe’s use of the terms ‘is descriptive fair use’ and that no consumer confusion is possible because the products are ‘distinct in branding, packaging and labeling’. “This case is not about protecting consumers or legitimate trademarks. It is about a competitor using litigation as an anti-competitive weapon, seeking rights it does not and cannot have to attack its competitor,” Chobani’s motion reads. In its complaint, Danone claims that consumers associate the ‘bright & mellow’ mark exclusively with the company, which has established ‘strong trademark rights’ over the mark through extensive branding and promotional activities. But the SToK owner doesn’t actually own ‘bright & mellow’ as a trademark – and that’s a key argument in Chobani’s defense. La Colombe’s owner says that ‘bright & mellow’ doesn’t even constitute a protectable trademark because it is merely ‘a generic phrase’ that describes flavor. Chobani points out that other players on the market are using similar language: Califia Farms’ Cold Brew Blonde Roast has ‘mellow & bright’ on pack; while Panera Bread’s ground coffee carries ‘bright, balanced, mellow’ as a description of its Light Roast product. “The fact that Danone uses these generic terms together does not magically create a monopoly over the combination,” the motion reads. “Each one is generic – and unprotected by trademark law – on its own." Danone says it has sold over 16.6 million units of SToK Bright & Mellow and made nearly $100 million in revenue, having spent ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ on advertising and marketing of SToK Bright & Mellow, according to the company’s court complaint. This has all led consumers to strongly associate the slogan with Danone, the complaint reads. Danone also argues that the target consumer is not knowledgeable enough to differentiate between the two products, which would lead to confusion. But Chobani claims La Colombe’s packaging and labeling is distinct enough to not cause confusion – arguing that the two products are ‘highly dissimilar’. “Neither the color of the packaging nor the products’ small descriptive flourishes conceal the clear, distinct La Colombe and STōK marks, featured prominently and unambiguously identifying the products’ different sources,” Chobani’s motion explains, adding that Danone ‘does not allege a single episode of actual consumer confusion, with only a conclusory allegation that the products will ‘inevitably cause consumer confusion’”. Proximity – the two products are frequently displayed alongside each other in grocery stores – is the ‘sole factor favoring Danone’, according to Chobani’s motion – but there’s no evidence of actual consumer confusion, it adds. “‘Bright & Mellow’ is not a protectable trademark; Danone does not use ‘Bright & Mellow’ as a trademark; Chobani’s use of the same phrase to describe its La Colombe Product is protected fair use; and there is no likelihood of consumer confusion between the products as a matter of law,” the motion concludes. Chobani’s motion is an escalation in the latest legal battle with Danone – but US trademark infringement cases rarely proceed to trial, with the vast majority settled out of court. One crucial factor that could influence the outcome of this litigation is Danone’s USPTO application for ‘bright & mellow’. While the French multi-national does not own the rights to ‘bright & mellow’ in the US, the company has applied for the trademark – and the application is progressing through the USPTO. It has passed initial screening and is due to be assigned to an examining attorney, who will decide if the mark can be legally owned by Danone. A decision could be due sooner rather than later, since the USPTO is currently assessing applications filed between March 10-24, 2025; while Danone was filed on February 14, 2025. If the case proceeds to trial, the outcome of the litigation could influence how US trademark law treats product descriptors. A win for Chobani could limit the scope of trademark protection for flavor descriptors and adjectives - reinforcing the idea that prominent placement of generic or descriptive terms is not enough to establish trademark rights. A Chobani win could also re-define what constitutes ‘a likelihood for confusion’ in crowded retail environments and strengthen protections for fair use of descriptive language in competitive product labeling. If the court sides with Danone, this could expand trademark protections to descriptive phrases, provided these have acquired secondary meaning, as Danone claims is the case with ‘Bright & Mellow’. Chobani is represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, with Gish PLLC acting for Danone.

Chobani hits back at Danone in trademark infringement case

Danone is ‘weaponizing’ the law to hurt Chobani’s ‘superior’ position in RTD coffee, according to a motion to dismiss filed by La Colombe’s owner

Related Topics

‘Knowing, calculated, and systematic’: Danone takes aim at Chobani in explosive court case