It’s been nearly three months since Texas gas station giant Buc-ee’s, which has a rapidly growing presence and fanbase outside the state, accused another animal-faced brand of ripping it off. Now, the duck-centric competitor rivaling Buc-ee’s in its Midwestern expansion is denying all accusations of trademark infringement outright without offering much explanation.
In February, the Missouri-based liquor store and “full-service drive thru” Duckees issued its response to a November trademark violation accusation from the beaver-laden Texas travel center chain. The smaller fuel stop, which only has one location in the Midwestern state, gave a pretty basic response to each of Buc-ee’s claims: “Defendant denies all allegations.”
At its simplest, Buc-ee’s says that Duckee’s use of a smiling duck in front a yellow circle all encompassed by a black border too closely resembles the beaver’s beloved logo. Buc-ee’s, too, greets customers with a grinned animal, a rodent in their case, with a yellow circle behind him.
Though, there are some clear differences between the two. The big-time beaver dawns a red hat and is facing right. The Duckees mascot, on the other hand, is facing the opposite direction, is pictured from waist up, dons a pair of dark-colored specs and seemingly reps his own brand with a green jersey with a “D” on it. Whether that’s enough of a difference to deter consumer confusion or ensure brand recognition will be up to the courts to decide.
“On information and belief, Duckees is using the DUCKEES’ Word Trademark and DUCKEES’ logo with full knowledge of Buc-ee’s rights, and in bad faith and with willful, malicious and deliberate intent to trade on Buc-ee’s substantial recognition, reputation, and goodwill,” the claims against Duckees reads.
However, one of a few clear arguments made by Duckees in its formal response states Buc-ee’s wasn’t doing business in Kansas, or at least in Kimberling City, Missouri where the liquor store is located, when Duckees first opened its doors, meaning there was no brand recognition to infringe on.
‘[Buc-ee’s] Complaint is barred by the ‘prior use doctrine.’ Any allegedly infringing use by [Duckees] was done in good faith without knowledge of [Buc-ee’s] marks,” the Kansas City gas station wrote in its argument against Buc-ee’s. “[Duckees] marks also are used in a geographically remote area where [Buc-ee’s] marks were not generally known to consumers.”
See here for the background. I would also note that the Duckee’s duck is giving a thumbs-up, or perhaps pointing with its thumb – you know, ducks are famous for their opposable thumbs – while the Buc-ee’s beaver has no visible limbs. Clearly, I should have been an intellectual property lawyer. This has been your periodic update into the various litigation efforts of Buc-ee’s.
Cheap publicity by a MAGA owned company (buc-ee), a la dick.