“To be clear, at the pleading stage, plaintiffs need only allege a plausible trademark interest, not prove it,” the court said. “Contrary to Grubhub’s contention, establishing that the mark is distinctive enough to warrant Lanham Act protection is not yet required.”
GrubHub Restaurants TM Infringement Suit : Case Background
The dispute over Grubhub’s alleged misappropriation of trademarks and confusion of restaurant customers has been ongoing since 2020. The case was paused while a similar case in Colorado neared a settlement, but the Illinois federal court lifted its stay after that deal appeared to stall.
Legal Representation
Grubhub is represented by Isaac J. Colunga, Sophie E. Honeyman, and Rachel Smoot of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. The restaurants and the proposed class are represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan of Fegan Scott LLC and Rosemary M. Rivas, Wynne Tidwell, and Brian Johnson of Gibbs Law Group LLP.