Impossible Foods v. Impossible X — Court Denies Laches Defense After Jury Finds Willful Trademark Infringement, Awards Fees and Permanent Injunction

Background

This trademark battle pits the well-known plant-based food company Impossible Foods against Impossible X LLC, a small lifestyle and fitness brand founded by Joel Runyon in 2010 — six years before Impossible Foods launched its signature Impossible Burger. Through Impossible LLC, Runyon used IMPOSSIBLE-formative marks on apparel, fitness and recipe information, and nutritional supplements.

Impossible Foods initiated the lawsuit in 2021 seeking a declaration of noninfringement. Impossible LLC counterclaimed, alleging that Impossible Foods’s use of the IMPOSSIBLE mark on branded promotional apparel (“Foods Swag”) and a cookbook (Impossible: The Cookbook) infringed its trademark rights. The case went to a six-day trial in March 2026, where the jury returned a complete verdict in favor of Impossible LLC: it found willful infringement, awarded $1.5 million in corrective advertising damages, and then — after finding that Impossible Foods acted with oppression, fraud, or malice — awarded an additional $1.75 million in punitive damages. Impossible Foods’s own claims against Impossible LLC (for infringement of its marks on supplements and for cancellation of Impossible LLC’s registrations) were all rejected by the jury.

The Court’s Holding

Laches defense denied. Impossible Foods argued that Impossible LLC waited too long to assert its claims, since Runyon was aware of the Foods Swag by 2015 or 2016 but did not counterclaim until 2024. The court rejected this defense, holding that the jury’s finding of willful infringement was fatal to laches. Citing a long line of Ninth Circuit precedent, Judge Freeman ruled that a willful infringer “cannot avail himself of laches which — as an equitable doctrine — protects only those parties who come to the Court with clean hands.” The court found no precedent in the Ninth Circuit for allowing a willful trademark infringer to successfully invoke laches. It also rejected Impossible Foods’s novel argument for a “reverse-confusion exception” to the willfulness bar, finding no support for the proposition that willfulness requires a subjective intent to exploit the senior user’s mark.

Attorney fees granted. The court found the case “exceptional” under the Lanham Act, warranting an award of attorney fees to Impossible LLC. The court emphasized the “substantial strength” of the case given the jury’s comprehensive verdict — finding infringement, willfulness, and aggravated conduct — as well as the disparity between the parties: Impossible Foods, a company that reported over $500 million in annual revenue, pursued claims against a sole-proprietor business while simultaneously infringing that business’s trademarks.

Permanent injunction granted. The court permanently enjoined Impossible Foods from using “Impossible” as a standalone word on apparel or cookbooks without additional words, logos, or design elements that clearly identify Impossible Foods as the source. The injunction does not bar use of “Impossible Foods” — only standalone uses of “Impossible” that could cause confusion with Impossible LLC’s marks.

Enhanced damages and PTO direction denied. The court declined to enhance damages beyond the jury’s award and refused to order the PTO to reject one of Impossible Foods’s pending trademark applications, finding Impossible LLC’s briefing on those issues insufficient.

Key Takeaways

• Willful trademark infringement effectively kills a laches defense in the Ninth Circuit — the court could find no case where a jury-adjudicated willful infringer successfully invoked laches.
• Large companies expanding into new product categories with their existing brand names face real infringement risk when smaller, earlier users already occupy that space — even if the smaller user is in a different industry segment.
• The injunction is carefully tailored: it does not bar Impossible Foods from using “Impossible” entirely, only from using it as a standalone mark on specific product categories (apparel and cookbooks) without clear source identification.
• The exceptional-case finding underscores that pursuing affirmative trademark claims while simultaneously willfully infringing the defendant’s marks can warrant fee-shifting.

Why It Matters

This case is a wake-up call for large brands that extend their trademarks into adjacent product categories without conducting adequate clearance searches. Impossible Foods — a company valued at billions — lost at trial to a sole proprietor who registered the IMPOSSIBLE mark years before the Impossible Burger existed. The $3.25 million in combined damages, the permanent injunction, and the exceptional-case fee award demonstrate that even well-known brands cannot simply overwhelm smaller, earlier trademark holders through sheer market presence. For in-house trademark counsel, the lesson is clear: when expanding into apparel, publishing, or other brand-extension categories, a comprehensive search for prior users is essential — and if a conflict surfaces, addressing it proactively rather than pushing ahead can avoid devastating results at trial.