Workers United v. Starbucks — Union’s Trademark and Copyright Declaratory Suit Can Proceed

Background

Workers United represents more than 12,000 Starbucks employees and uses the name “Starbucks Workers United” together with a logo showing a raised fist holding a cup. Starbucks sent a cease-and-desist letter in 2023 and sued over alleged trademark and copyright infringement. Workers United filed its own action seeking declarations of noninfringement and nondilution.

The parties later signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at resolving their broader disputes and voluntarily dismissed their first lawsuits without prejudice. Negotiations did not produce a final settlement. Workers United filed this Pennsylvania action in April 2026, and Starbucks later refiled an infringement case in Iowa. Starbucks moved to dismiss, arguing that the memorandum had eliminated any live controversy.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Michael Baylson denied the motion. Treating Starbucks’s jurisdictional challenge as a facial attack, the court accepted the amended complaint’s allegations as true and found a sufficiently immediate and concrete dispute under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

The memorandum was an interim negotiating framework, not a settlement, release, covenant not to sue, or final adjudication. Workers United alleged that it continued using the disputed name and logo, while Starbucks continued maintaining that those uses infringed its rights. The earlier cease-and-desist letter, the prior lawsuit, the dismissals without prejudice, and Starbucks’s renewed Iowa case made the enforcement threat concrete. Continuing negotiations did not erase that controversy.

The ruling does not decide whether the union’s branding infringes or dilutes Starbucks’s marks, or infringes Starbucks’s copyright. It holds only that Workers United may obtain discovery and pursue judicial declarations about those issues.

Key Takeaways

• An agreement to negotiate does not necessarily eliminate declaratory-judgment jurisdiction.
• A dismissal without prejudice and the absence of a covenant not to sue can leave an IP controversy alive.
• The merits of likelihood of confusion, dilution, and copyright infringement remain unresolved.

Why It Matters

Brand owners and organizations negotiating over disputed names or logos should say expressly whether an interim agreement releases claims or bars suit. A framework that merely regulates conduct during negotiations may not remove federal jurisdiction, especially when prior enforcement threats remain outstanding.