Honest Greens Barcelona, S.A.U. v. Poky’s LLC, 2026 WL
2593358, No. 4:24-cv-07023-JD (D.S.C. Sept. 2, 2026)

Honest Greens operates restaurants in Spain and Portugal
under the HONEST GREENS name and related marks; it owns registrations for
HONEST GREENS in several foreign jurisdictions, and allegedly developed
substantial goodwill through restaurant operations, advertising, digital
platforms, and social media. It also alleged “substantial contact with United
States consumers” by selling meals to customers from the US. It also alleged
that it marketed its services to United States consumers; received tens of
thousands of visits to honestgreens.com from United States IP addresses; since
2021, has attributed at least seven percent of its sales to customers using
United States-based credit cards; identified more than 36,000 United
States-based users who have downloaded its mobile app; and has approximately
8,000 United States-based users following its HONEST GREENS Instagram account. The
app permits users, including travelers in the United States, to place an order
in advance for collection at one of HG’s European restaurants.

Poky’s allegedly uses the domain name <honestgreens.us>,
a website, a mobile application, and the Instagram username HONESTGREENS.US to
promote a Myrtle Beach restaurant operating under the HONEST GREENS name. The
complaint alleged consumer confusion, including a message asking, “Same menu as
honest greens abroad?” and another reporting, “I’ve placed this order but it
got sent to the wrong location in Myrtle Beach.”

For statutory standing, Poky’s noted that HG didn’t allege
that a consumer chose Poky’s Myrtle Beach restaurant instead of an Honest
Greens restaurant in Spain or Portugal, and that one or two instances of online
confusion are too isolated to establish a plausible causal connection with harm
to HG. This might be true later on, but at the pleading stage HG did enough. It
alleged a US-facing commercial reputation as well as injury to that reputation
from the allegedly confusing restaurants, which sufficed for proximate
causation.

Although Belmora cautioned that “[a] few isolated
consumers” who merely confuse a domestic mark with one seen abroad, without
additional misleading conduct, would rarely state a viable claim,” HG alleged
additional conduct including use of the .us domain when HG’s identical .com
domain was unavailable for the same general category of restaurant services and
an alleged specific intent to deceive consumers as to source or sponsorship. “Whether
Plaintiff can prove intentional copying, meaningful United States goodwill, or
material confusion is a later question.”

Poky’s also argued that, without US restaurants, HG could obtain
neither an injunction (Dawn Donut) nor damages. True, the relevant cases
make geographic market separation “highly relevant, particularly to likelihood
of confusion and territorial injunctive relief, but they do not establish the
categorical rule Defendant proposes.” Again, a motion to dismiss did not
determine whether the evidence could ultimately show “sufficient confusion,
market penetration, or reputational injury.”

However, because false advertising requires more evidence
than trademark infringement, the false advertising claim failed. The complaint
didn’t identify a false or misleading statement of fact or a misrepresentation
of a specific characteristic or quality, nor did it allege materiality. 

An ACPA claim over the domain name also survived because the
complaint plausibly alleged a bad faith intent to profit. At this stage, it was
enough to allege Poky’s knowledge of the mark, intent to infringe, and
confusing similarity, even though Poky’s use of the domain name to operate a
real restaurant “may be relevant to the totality of the circumstances and to
Poky’s contention that it is a legitimate concurrent user.”  “[T]he pleaded consumer diversion facts, not
mere knowledge of the .com domain or similarity of names, are what permit the
ACPA theory to survive at the pleading stage. Whether the proof ultimately
shows only ordinary infringement rather than cybersquatting remains for the
developed record.”

And HG didn’t need to plead a South Carolina registration to
bring common-law claims.

from Blogger https://tushnet.blogspot.com/2026/09/its-hard-to-get-rid-of-foreign-tm.html