A food or beverage company that discovers a competitor using similar branding should first preserve evidence, confirm what intellectual property rights it actually owns, identify exactly what the competitor copied, and determine whether consumers are likely to believe the products come from the same source or are affiliated.
The correct enforcement strategy depends on the type of copying.
A confusingly similar product name or logo may raise trademark infringement issues. Copying original illustrations, photographs, or label graphics may involve copyright. Imitating the overall appearance of distinctive, nonfunctional packaging may raise trade dress concerns. A competitor’s pending federal trademark application may be challenged through a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding, while marketplace infringement may require a demand letter, platform complaint, negotiation, or federal court action.
Trademark infringement is not established merely because two products look somewhat similar. The USPTO defines infringement as unauthorized use of a trademark in a manner likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of goods or services.
Key Takeaways
Preserve evidence before contacting the competitor. Online listings, packaging, advertisements, social media pages, and product descriptions can change quickly once the other company learns of a dispute.
Identify what was actually copied. A similar name, copied illustration, imitated package configuration, and counterfeit label may implicate different legal rights.
Confirm ownership before asserting infringement. A Principal Register registration provides important presumptions of ownership and the right to use the registered mark for the listed goods or services, while unregistered marks may still have common-law rights based on use.
Check whether the competitor filed a trademark application. Publication normally begins a 30-day opposition period, so discovering the application early can create procedural options before it registers.
Choose the enforcement tool that matches the objective. The TTAB decides registration rights but cannot decide infringement or award marketplace injunctions or damages. Courts can provide broader infringement remedies.
What Is the First Thing a Food Brand Should Do When It Finds a Copycat?
Preserve the evidence before sending a letter or filing a complaint.
A competitor can change an ecommerce listing, remove an advertisement, modify packaging photographs, rename a social account, or replace a webpage after receiving notice of a possible dispute.
The company should preserve the competitor’s presentation as customers actually encounter it.
Useful evidence may include dated screenshots showing the complete webpage, URL, seller identity, product photographs, product description, pricing, ordering information, customer reviews, and other relevant context.
Physical products can be equally important.
Purchasing a sample may preserve the actual label, package configuration, manufacturer information, distributor information, product inserts, shipping materials, and other details that are not visible in an online photograph.
The company should preserve original files rather than keeping only annotated screenshots. If the dispute later becomes contested, contemporaneous evidence can help establish what the competitor was actually doing at a particular point in time.
Does Similar Branding Automatically Mean Trademark Infringement?
No.
Trademark infringement generally turns on whether the accused use is likely to cause confusion regarding source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
For a federally registered mark, 15 U.S.C. §1114 addresses unauthorized use of reproductions, counterfeits, copies, or colorable imitations in commerce when that use is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception.
The competing product does not need to use an identical name.
For example, a beverage company using VELORIA might potentially object to VELORRIA NATURALS for a closely related beverage if consumers are likely to focus on the highly similar VELORIA and VELORRIA portions.
The analysis can be different when the companies merely share a weak term such as FRESH, NATURAL, ORGANIC, FARM, PURE, or KITCHEN.
Food and beverage companies frequently use descriptive, suggestive, or laudatory wording. A company should therefore avoid assuming it owns every use of a common industry term merely because that term appears somewhere in its trademark.
What Factors Determine Whether Food Branding Is Confusingly Similar?
The precise likelihood-of-confusion test can vary by federal circuit, but courts generally consider multiple factors relating to the trademarks, products, consumers, and marketplace circumstances.
The similarity of the names or logos is important. So is the relationship between the products, strength of the earlier trademark, relevant trade channels, purchasing conditions, and available evidence of actual confusion.
The comparison should reflect how ordinary consumers encounter the products rather than placing the packages next to each other and examining them with unusual care.
Food and beverage purchases are often made through grocery stores, retail websites, delivery applications, online marketplaces, and quick purchasing environments. The actual context can therefore matter considerably.
Can Different Food Products Still Create Trademark Infringement?
Yes.
The products do not need to be identical.
Consumers regularly encounter established food and beverage companies extending one brand across related product categories. Coffee brands may sell creamers and ready-to-drink beverages. Snack companies may expand into dips. Pasta brands may offer sauces. Beverage companies may sell mixers.
Trademark law asks whether consumers could believe the products originate from the same company or related companies, not whether the products themselves are interchangeable.
This means a food company should evaluate both the similarity of the branding and the commercial relationship between the goods.
Does Selling Through the Same Grocery Stores Make Infringement More Likely?
It can.
Overlapping sales channels can increase the possibility that consumers will encounter the brands in circumstances suggesting a connection.
Two related food products appearing in the same supermarket category, retailer search results, grocery delivery platform, or online marketplace may create a different commercial impression from products sold to completely different buyers through unrelated channels.
However, being sold somewhere within the same large supermarket is not enough by itself to establish infringement.
The complete marketplace relationship matters.
Can Actual Customer Confusion Strengthen a Food Trademark Case?
Yes.
A trademark owner ordinarily does not need to prove that consumers have already been confused in order to establish infringement. Likelihood of confusion is the central issue.
Evidence that customers have actually been confused can nevertheless be powerful.
Examples might include a customer asking whether the competitor is the company’s new product, complaints about the competitor being sent to the original company, retailers treating the businesses as affiliated, social media users tagging the wrong brand, or reviews being posted on the wrong product listing.
Comments such as “Did you change your packaging?” or “Is this your new flavor?” may become relevant evidence of how consumers perceive the competing presentation.
The company should preserve those communications with their original dates, sender information, and context.
Can a Company Enforce an Unregistered Food Trademark?
Potentially, yes.
Federal registration is not required to establish every trademark right in the United States.
The USPTO explains that trademark ownership can arise through actual use and that common-law trademark rights may exist even without a federal registration. Those rights are often geographically limited by the extent of use.
A company relying on unregistered rights should be prepared to establish its priority and scope.
Relevant evidence may include dated packaging, invoices, wholesale orders, shipping documents, retailer records, advertisements, archived webpages, photographs, and other materials showing when and where the trademark was used.
A federal registration can make enforcement more straightforward because it carries important statutory presumptions.
What Does a Federal Trademark Registration Add to an Enforcement Case?
A registration on the Principal Register provides important procedural and evidentiary advantages.
The USPTO states that a Principal Register registration creates a legal presumption of the validity and ownership of the mark and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark nationwide in connection with the goods or services listed in the registration.
That does not mean the registrant automatically wins every infringement dispute.
The registration can still be challenged, and infringement still requires analysis of the accused use and relevant legal factors.
It nevertheless places the registrant in a materially stronger starting position than a company that must establish every element of its ownership and priority solely through historical common-law evidence.
What Should the Company Identify Before Sending a Demand Letter?
It should determine exactly which intellectual property rights are implicated.
A broad complaint that “they copied our branding” is less useful than identifying the specific assets involved.
Those assets may include the company name, house mark, individual product name, logo, slogan, label illustration, product photography, character artwork, bottle configuration, package arrangement, or overall trade dress.
Each may require a different legal analysis.
A similar product name may support a traditional trademark claim. Reproduction of an illustration may implicate copyright. A highly similar package presentation may require trade dress analysis.
Defining the copied asset helps prevent the company from asserting rights it does not actually possess.
Can Food or Beverage Packaging Be Protected as Trade Dress?
Yes, in appropriate circumstances.
The USPTO defines trade dress broadly as the total image and overall appearance of a product or its packaging. It may include features such as size, shape, color combinations, texture, and graphics.
For a food or beverage brand, trade dress could potentially involve a distinctive combination of container configuration, label placement, graphical arrangement, colors, and other visual features.
The important concept is the combination.
A company may not possess exclusive rights to a common glass bottle, the color green, fruit illustrations, or an ordinary rectangular label individually. Those elements may nevertheless contribute to a distinctive overall presentation when combined in a recognizable way.
Trade dress therefore can become relevant when a competitor avoids copying the exact name but closely recreates the package customers associate with the original brand.
Is Unique Packaging Automatically Protectable as Trade Dress?
No.
Packaging must satisfy trademark requirements.
Under the USPTO’s current May 2026 TMEP, trade dress must be evaluated for both distinctiveness and functionality. Product packaging can sometimes be inherently distinctive, while product design is never inherently distinctive and requires acquired distinctiveness for Principal Register protection.
A package does not become protectable simply because the company’s design team believes it is unique.
The legal analysis asks whether the presentation functions as a source identifier and whether the claimed features are legally capable of trademark protection.
Can a Functional Package Feature Be Protected Against Copying?
Generally not through trademark law.
Functionality is a major limitation on trade dress protection.
The USPTO’s current TMEP states that trade dress is functional when the relevant feature is essential to the use or purpose of the product or affects its cost or quality. Functional matter cannot be monopolized through trademark law.
For food and beverage packaging, this may affect features such as closures, handles, dispensing mechanisms, stackable configurations, leak-prevention features, or designs driven by storage or preservation needs.
A company may still possess rights in nonfunctional decorative elements surrounding those features.
Enforcement should focus on what is genuinely source-identifying rather than trying to prevent competitors from using useful packaging features they need to compete.
Can Copyright Protect a Food Label or Package Design?
Yes, sufficiently original artwork can receive copyright protection.
The U.S. Copyright Office identifies graphic designs, illustrations, photographs, logos, and the visual aspects of labels among works commonly registered as visual art.
Copyright can be particularly useful when a competitor copies the actual creative expression used in branding.
For example, a competitor might use a different product name but reproduce an original illustrated character, photograph, decorative pattern, or graphic composition from the original company’s package.
That conduct can present a different issue from ordinary trademark similarity.
Copyright does not protect every visual element. Common symbols, simple typography, minimalist designs, and insufficiently creative material may not qualify.
Does the Company Need a Copyright Registration Before Suing Over Copied Label Artwork?
For a U.S. work, registration or preregistration is generally required before instituting a civil infringement action.
17 U.S.C. §411(a) provides that, subject to statutory exceptions, a civil action for infringement of a United States work cannot be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made.
This creates a practical reason for CPG companies to consider copyright registration for commercially important original label art, packaging illustrations, product photography, and similar visual assets before a dispute occurs.
Ownership should also be confirmed.
If the work was created by an outside agency, photographer, illustrator, or freelancer, the company should review whether copyright ownership was properly transferred.
Should the Company Search the Competitor’s USPTO Filings?
Yes.
A copycat brand may also have filed a federal trademark application.
The USPTO record can reveal the application owner, filing date, listed goods and services, application basis, specimens, Office Actions, attorney information, and current status.
That status can materially affect enforcement strategy.
A recently filed application presents a different procedural situation from a registration that has existed for several years.
How Long Does a Food Brand Have to Oppose a Competitor’s Trademark Application?
The initial opposition period is 30 days from publication.
Under 15 U.S.C. §1063, a party that believes it would be damaged by registration may file an opposition within 30 days after publication. The statute also provides mechanisms for extensions when timely requested.
The USPTO likewise explains that publication in the Trademark Official Gazette begins the 30-day opposition period.
This makes trademark monitoring valuable.
Discovering a potentially conflicting application during examination can give the brand owner time to evaluate it before publication. Discovering it during the opposition window may allow the company to oppose or request an extension while it investigates or negotiates.
Waiting until registration changes the procedural options.
What Is a TTAB Opposition?
A trademark opposition challenges a pending federal application before registration.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board functions as the USPTO’s administrative tribunal for disputes concerning the right to federal trademark registration.
For a food brand confronting a competitor’s application, likelihood of confusion may be one available ground when the earlier company has priority and believes registration of the later mark will cause legally cognizable harm.
The TTAB proceeding can prevent the application from becoming a federal registration if the opposer succeeds.
It does not necessarily stop the competing company from continuing marketplace use.
What If the Competitor’s Trademark Has Already Registered?
A petition for cancellation may be available.
15 U.S.C. §1064 permits parties that believe they are or will be damaged by a registration to seek cancellation under the circumstances and grounds provided by the statute.
Timing can matter.
Some challenges are available during the first five years after registration but become restricted later. Other statutory grounds, including certain claims involving genericness, functionality, abandonment, fraud, or misrepresentation of source, may remain available beyond five years when the statutory requirements are satisfied.
A company should therefore review both the registration date and the specific legal ground before assuming cancellation remains available on the same basis indefinitely.
Can the TTAB Order a Competitor to Stop Selling Its Product?
No.
This distinction is essential.
The USPTO states that the TTAB determines only rights to federal registration. It does not decide trademark infringement or unfair competition and cannot grant the ordinary marketplace remedies available from a court.
An opposition may prevent the competitor from registering its trademark.
A cancellation may remove an existing federal registration.
Neither proceeding by itself generally provides an injunction stopping the competitor’s sales.
A company that needs marketplace relief may need to consider court proceedings or another enforcement strategy.
Should a Food Brand Send a Cease-and-Desist Letter?
Often, but the letter should be grounded in actual enforceable rights.
A cease-and-desist letter can provide an opportunity to resolve a branding dispute before litigation.
Depending on the circumstances, the company may request discontinuation of a name or logo, changes to packaging, withdrawal of a pending trademark application, removal of online listings, transfer of a disputed domain, or an agreed transition period.
The demand should match the company’s rights.
Claiming exclusive ownership over generic words, common colors, ordinary container shapes, functional package features, or familiar ingredient imagery can weaken the company’s position.
The better question is not “What parts of their package look like ours?” It is “Which protectable features are they using in a way that creates a legally meaningful problem?”
Should a Cease-and-Desist Letter Demand an Immediate Rebrand?
Not necessarily in every case.
The desired outcome should reflect the commercial problem.
A direct competitor using a nearly identical distinctive trademark may justify a very different response from a business sharing one weak descriptive word.
Potential resolutions can include a complete rebrand, limited product restrictions, packaging changes, use of a stronger house mark, a phase-out period, geographic arrangements, or another negotiated solution.
The company should decide what commercial result it actually needs before structuring the demand.
Can a Food Brand Use Amazon or Other Marketplace Complaints Against a Copycat?
Potentially, depending on the platform, the conduct, and the rights involved.
Online marketplaces and social media platforms often maintain procedures for reporting intellectual property violations.
The company should identify the correct right.
A trademark complaint concerning a confusingly similar product name should not be characterized as copyright infringement simply because a copyright reporting form is available.
Similarly, if the competitor actually copied original photographs or label artwork, a copyright-based procedure may be more appropriate.
For qualifying online copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. §512 establishes the statutory notice framework applicable to many online service providers and identifies the information required for an effective notice.
Accuracy matters because federal copyright law also addresses material misrepresentations in notices.
Does Removing the Competitor From One Marketplace Solve the Trademark Dispute?
Not necessarily.
Platform enforcement can remove or disable a particular listing, but the competitor may continue selling through its own website, other marketplaces, physical stores, distributors, or new seller accounts.
Platform enforcement is therefore often one component of a broader strategy.
The company may need to combine marketplace complaints with direct communication, retailer outreach, trademark proceedings, or litigation depending on the commercial scale of the copying.
When Should a Food or Beverage Brand Consider a Federal Lawsuit?
Court action becomes more relevant when the company needs relief that administrative trademark proceedings or platform complaints cannot provide.
The USPTO explains that a trademark plaintiff generally must establish ownership of a valid mark, priority over the defendant, and likely consumer confusion regarding source or sponsorship.
Potential court remedies can include injunctive relief, destruction or forfeiture of infringing articles, monetary relief involving the defendant’s profits or the plaintiff’s damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees in qualifying cases.
Federal law also authorizes courts to grant injunctions to prevent trademark violations.
Litigation strategy should still reflect the commercial stakes.
A national competitor copying a major product line can justify a different level of response from a small seller using a weakly similar term in a limited market.
Can a Court Stop the Copycat Before the Case Is Finished?
Potentially.
A trademark owner may seek preliminary injunctive relief when ongoing conduct creates sufficiently urgent harm and the legal requirements are met.
15 U.S.C. §1116 authorizes federal courts to issue injunctions and provides a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm for certain injunction requests after the required findings concerning the trademark violation or likelihood of success.
Preliminary relief is not automatic.
The company must develop an evidentiary record supporting the requested relief, and the court applies equitable standards to the particular dispute.
Can U.S. Customs Stop Imported Copycat Food or Beverage Products?
Potentially, when eligible intellectual property rights have been recorded with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
CBP states that it can detain, seize, forfeit, and ultimately destroy certain imported merchandise bearing infringing trademarks or copyrights when the underlying rights are properly registered and recorded with CBP.
For trademarks, CBP currently requires a valid USPTO registration on the Principal Register for recordation. The agency’s 2026 guidance lists a $190 e-Recordation fee per International Class of goods.
This option can be valuable for food, beverage, packaging, or merchandise brands facing imported counterfeits.
CBP recordation does not replace domestic enforcement. It adds a border-enforcement layer to the company’s broader strategy.
Does a Food Brand Own Its Packaging Colors?
Not automatically.
Color can contribute to trademark or trade dress rights, but ordinary use of a particular color does not necessarily give one company exclusive rights to that color throughout an industry.
Food packaging frequently uses familiar visual signals.
Green may suggest natural or organic positioning. Red may convey certain flavors. Gold may communicate premium positioning. Fruit imagery may describe ingredients or flavor. Clear containers may simply allow buyers to see the product.
The strongest argument may concern a distinctive overall combination rather than one individual component.
Current USPTO trade dress guidance emphasizes distinctiveness and functionality rather than granting exclusive rights merely because a packaging feature has been used consistently.
Can a Company Stop a Competitor From Using the Same Bottle or Jar?
Not necessarily.
Many containers are ordinary industry packaging or serve functional purposes.
A standard jar, bottle, carton, pouch, cap, or closure may not be independently protectable merely because one company used it first.
The trade dress analysis becomes stronger when a competitor copies a distinctive combination of nonfunctional elements that customers have come to recognize as identifying one source.
The claim should therefore focus on what trademark law actually protects rather than attempting to control standard packaging technology or industry conventions.
What Evidence Should the Food Brand Preserve About Its Own Use?
The company’s own historical evidence can be just as important as evidence of the competitor’s conduct.
The brand should preserve dated packaging, historic labels, product photographs, invoices, retailer orders, distributor records, advertisements, ecommerce pages, media coverage, and other evidence showing how the mark or packaging has been used.
These materials can become important when the competitor disputes priority, challenges ownership, argues that the claimed trade dress lacks recognition, or attacks the scope of the company’s rights.
An enforcement file should therefore include evidence from both sides.
Should Food Brands Monitor USPTO Applications Before Copying Becomes a Problem?
Yes.
Trademark monitoring can identify potentially conflicting applications before they become registrations.
The USPTO publication process creates a relatively short initial opposition window of 30 days.
Monitoring can also reveal new businesses adopting similar names before those companies establish large national operations.
For an established food or beverage brand, early detection may create more strategic options than waiting until both parties have significant inventory, retail relationships, and customer recognition.
What Should an Internal Brand-Enforcement Process Look Like?
The company should create a consistent process for identifying, documenting, evaluating, and escalating potential infringement.
Sales teams, distributors, customer-service staff, and marketing personnel are often the first people to see a copycat or receive evidence of consumer confusion.
Those reports should reach one centralized internal contact rather than remaining scattered across inboxes and messaging platforms.
The company should also retain historical evidence of its own branding and maintain accurate records showing which entity owns each trademark, logo, copyright, and other asset.
Consistent enforcement does not mean challenging every similarity.
The goal is to prioritize conduct that creates meaningful risks to customer recognition, sales, reputation, or expansion.
What Are the Most Common Mistakes When Responding to a Food Brand Copycat?
One common mistake is contacting the competitor before preserving evidence.
Another is assuming that every similar package creates infringement.
Companies can also weaken their position by asserting ownership of descriptive product language, industry-standard imagery, common colors, or functional packaging features.
Another mistake is using the wrong enforcement mechanism.
A TTAB opposition cannot produce a marketplace injunction. A copyright complaint should not be used merely because a trademark dispute occurs online. A platform takedown may remove one listing without resolving the underlying brand dispute.
The strongest response starts by identifying the right being enforced and the commercial outcome the company actually needs.
Frequently Asked Questions About Competitors Copying Food and Beverage Branding
Can I sue a competitor for using a similar food product name?
Potentially. A trademark infringement claim generally requires valid rights, priority, and a likelihood that consumers will be confused about source or sponsorship. The names do not need to be identical.
Does my trademark have to be federally registered before I can enforce it?
No. Common-law trademark rights can arise through actual use, although their geographic and practical scope may be more limited. Federal registration provides significant additional benefits and presumptions.
Can I stop a competitor from copying my packaging if the names are different?
Potentially. Distinctive, nonfunctional packaging may qualify as trade dress, and original artwork may also receive copyright protection. Whether a claim exists depends on the particular features and rights involved.
Can a competitor copy my label illustration?
Copyright may protect sufficiently original illustrations and graphic artwork. For a U.S. work, copyright registration or preregistration generally must occur before a civil infringement suit is filed.
Can I oppose a competitor’s trademark application?
Potentially. A party that believes it would be damaged by registration may file an opposition during the statutory opposition period. The initial period is 30 days following publication, subject to available extensions.
Can the TTAB make the competitor stop using its name?
No. The TTAB determines federal registration rights. It does not decide infringement or issue ordinary marketplace injunctions or damages.
Can I cancel a competitor’s existing trademark registration?
Potentially. A petition for cancellation may be available depending on the grounds and age of the registration. Some grounds become restricted after five years, while certain statutory grounds remain available later.
Can I report copied branding to an online marketplace?
Potentially. Many platforms provide intellectual property reporting tools, but the company should identify the correct right and submit accurate information. Statutory DMCA procedures specifically apply to qualifying copyright claims, not ordinary trademark disputes.
Can a court order the competitor to stop selling?
Yes, when the requirements for injunctive relief are established. Federal trademark law authorizes courts to grant injunctions to prevent trademark violations.
Can I recover damages for trademark infringement?
Potential remedies can include defendant’s profits, damages sustained by the plaintiff, and costs, subject to the statute and principles of equity. Attorneys’ fees may be available in exceptional cases.
Can CBP stop imported counterfeit products?
Potentially. Eligible federally registered trademarks and copyrights can be recorded with CBP for border-enforcement purposes.
Final Thoughts
What should a food or beverage company do when a competitor copies its branding?
The first response should usually be investigation and evidence preservation, not an immediate accusation.
The company should determine what was copied, identify who owns the relevant rights, confirm priority, preserve the competitor’s marketplace presentation, and analyze whether the use is likely to confuse consumers.
Different assets may support different forms of protection.
Trademark law can protect distinctive names and logos. Trade dress may protect distinctive, nonfunctional packaging. Copyright can protect sufficiently original illustrations, photographs, and graphic designs.
The procedural strategy should also match the company’s objective.
A pending trademark application may be challenged through a TTAB opposition. An existing registration may potentially be challenged through cancellation. But the TTAB determines registration rights rather than marketplace infringement.
When the business needs a competitor to stop selling, change its branding, or pay monetary relief, a court action may become relevant. Federal trademark law authorizes injunctive relief and potentially provides profits, damages, costs, and other remedies when the statutory requirements are met.
For food and beverage brands, effective enforcement is therefore not simply about being aggressive. It is about identifying the strongest protectable rights, building reliable evidence, and selecting the remedy that addresses the actual commercial problem.
Primary Authorities and Sources
15 U.S.C. §1114 addresses infringement of federally registered trademarks through unauthorized uses likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception.
15 U.S.C. §1116 authorizes federal courts to grant injunctive relief for trademark violations and addresses the rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm applicable to certain injunction requests.
15 U.S.C. §1117 addresses monetary remedies including defendant’s profits, plaintiff’s damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees in exceptional cases.
15 U.S.C. §1063 establishes the statutory opposition procedure and the initial 30-day period following publication.
15 U.S.C. §1064 governs petitions to cancel federal trademark registrations and identifies grounds and timing rules that can change after the first five years of registration.
TMEP §1202.02, May 2026 edition, addresses product and packaging trade dress, including distinctiveness and the prohibition against trademark protection for functional features.
17 U.S.C. §411 establishes the copyright registration prerequisite applicable to most civil infringement actions involving U.S. works.
17 U.S.C. §512 establishes the statutory notice-and-takedown framework applicable to qualifying online copyright infringement.
Current U.S. Customs and Border Protection guidance explains how eligible Principal Register trademark registrations and copyright registrations may be recorded through CBP’s e-Recordation program for border enforcement.
About the Author
Abraham Cohn is Managing Partner of Cohn Legal, PLLC and heads the firm’s Intellectual Property and Transactional Group. His practice focuses on intellectual property protection, licensing and counseling involving brands and designs, together with strategic commercial transactions. Cohn Legal identifies Food/Beverage & CPG and Trademark Prosecution and Filing among his related capabilities.