Pacific Market International, the company behind the viral Stanley brand, has filed suit against Five Below, alleging that the discount retailer’s “dupes” are not merely inspired by its products but cross the line into infringing its protected designs. In the complaint that it filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 6, PMI accuses Five Below of engaging in “parasitic and intentional copying” by way of its sale of low-cost lookalike versions of Stanley’s QUENCHER and ICEFLOW tumblers in a manner intended to capitalize on its brand and protected designs, and infringing its design patents, trademarks, and trade dress in the process.
According to the complaint, Five Below is offering drinkware products under names like “Hyperquench,” “Hydraquench,” “HydraSip,” and “Hydrachug,” which “outright mimic” Stanley’s distinctive product designs and leverage the goodwill associated with the QUENCHER mark. PMI claims that these products copy key elements of its trade dress, including the signature handle shapes, metal banding, and lid configurations, as well as “the selection of colors, gradients, and finishes,” in a way that is likely to create confusion among consumers as to the source – or its endorsement – of the products.
>> PMI asserts that Five Below “intentionally trades on [its] hard-earned goodwill” and seeks to “divert sales” by selling “knockoff, infringing versions of [its] well-known and highly distinctive drinkware products,” and that the Philadelphia-headquartered retailer’s conduct reflects a deliberate effort to profit from Stanley’s popularity rather than develop its own designs.
The newly-filed lawsuit emphasizes that the alleged copying extends beyond general product resemblance: PMI points to two design patents, U.S. Design Patent No. D805,838 (covering a tumbler lid) and U.S. Design Patent No. D955,173 (covering a beverage container), and claims that Five Below’s Hydraquench and HydraSip products are “substantially the same” as the patented designs when viewed side-by-side.
PMI further alleges that Five Below’s conduct is willful, with the retailer not only continuing to sell the allegedly infringing product after receiving a letter identifying PMI’s rights, but “even expanded its line of infringing products after acknowledging receipt of PMI’s letter.”
Finally, PMI references media coverage that documents the popularity of “Stanley dupes,” and alleges that Five Below promotes the accused products through an affiliate marketing program that amplifies comparisons between its products and PMI’s. This environment heightens the likelihood of consumer confusion and blurs the distinctiveness of its trade dress.
With the foregoing in mind, PMI accuses Five Below of design patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The company is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief to stop further sales, claiming that continued availability of the accused products threatens to erode the distinctiveness and reputation associated with Stanley’s brand.
TL/DR: PMI argues that Five Below could have selected any number of alternative tumbler designs but instead chose to produce and sell products that are difficult to distinguish from authentic Stanley tumblers. Some consumers may mistakenly believe the Five Below versions are affiliated with Stanley, while others intentionally buy them because they closely resemble Stanley products at a lower price.
The case is Pacific Market International, LLC v. Five Below, Inc., 3:25-cv-09604 (N.D. Cal.).
Share
