Join us at ASI Show Fort Worth, March 29 – 31.   Register Now.

News February 20, 2025

Stanley Black & Decker Files Trademark Suit Against Stanley Drinkware’s Parent Company

A complaint says PMI has breached agreements on how it can use the “Stanley” name, with everything from branding on tumblers to branded apparel among the alleged violations.

By  Christopher Ruvo

Key Takeaways

• Lawsuit Filed: Stanley Black & Decker is suing Pacific Market International (PMI), which sells Stanley drinkware, for trademark infringement, breach of contract and unfair competition over alleged misuse of the “Stanley” name.

• Alleged Violations: PMI allegedly violated agreements by using the Stanley name broadly, including on its drinkware, on branded merchandise and in marketing, causing marketplace confusion.

• Remedies Sought: Stanley Black & Decker seeks damages, product recalls, corrective advertising and restrictions on PMI’s use of the Stanley name.

Stanley is suing Stanley – so to speak.

Stanley Black & Decker, a 182-year-old Connecticut-based manufacturer of the Stanley line of tools, has filed a lawsuit against Pacific Market International (PMI), the Seattle-based parent company of the popular Stanley brand of drinkware. The companies are not connected and are under different ownership.

The toolmaker alleges that PMI has chronically and intentionally violated agreements between the companies that establish how the shared Stanley name can be used. The suit says PMI is guilty of trademark infringement, breach of contract and unfair competition violations.

How PMI uses the “Stanley” name on the drinkware it sells is among the alleged legal violations.

Stanley Black & Decker said that in 1966 it forged agreements with the previous owners of the Stanley drinkware brand, Aladdin, that prohibited the insulated cup and bottle maker from “unconstrained” use of the Stanley name, as the tool provider’s rights to the name superseded those of Aladdin.

The agreements, which Stanley Black & Decker says it reaffirmed with restrictions in 2012 with PMI, prohibit PMI from using the Stanley name on specific categories of products while also restricting PMI’s website domain name and how the drinkware provider can advertise and display/mark goods, according to the suit.

“But recently,” the complaint alleges, “PMI has willfully and intentionally ignored the carefully crafted restrictions of the parties’ agreement, choosing instead to use Stanley broadly, including in ways that the parties’ agreement expressly prohibited and that infringe on Stanley’s trademark rights.”

Examples of misuse include using the Stanley name on branded merchandise, such as apparel and headwear. It goes well beyond that though, according to the suit.

PMI allegedly used the Stanley name in a way that violated Stanley Black & Decker trademarks, creating marketplace confusion on social media, its website, website domain name, in email addresses, press releases and statements, and in various marketing and promotional efforts, as well as in point-of-sale materials.

“PMI has adopted the company name and the brand or trade name Stanley (or, sometimes, Stanley 1913) in virtually every consumer and business interaction,” the suit says.

This constitutes a willful violation of both the 2012 agreement and Stanley’s trademark rights, according to the complaint.

Says the suit: “PMI adopted Stanley and/or Stanley 1913 as a tradename, house mark, and brand name; rebranded its company, business, and products as Stanley and/or Stanley 1913; used the domain name www.stanley1913.com; expanded its product offerings beyond food and beverage containers; and abandoned any effort to refer to itself as PMI or otherwise use its full corporate name or PMI in connection with its products, company name, domain name, press releases, and/or advertising materials as contemplated by the 2012 agreement.”

Remedies Sought & Other Legal Battles

PMI is yet to respond to the complaint, which asks a judge for damages to be awarded to the toolmaker and for PMI to be permanently enjoined from the alleged violations. One of those requested enjoinment remedies include forcing PMI to include some kind of “PMI” or “Pacific Market International” marking on its Stanley drinkware products.

The suit further asks that PMI be prohibited from using “Stanley” in connection with products that are not food and beverage containers or carrying cases for transporting those containers.

Stanley Black & Decker also wants product recalls, corrective advertising campaigns, public disclaimers, and the forfeiture and/or destruction of products/articles that continue to be in violation.

PMI has been at the center of a number of controversies over the last year.

In 2024, consumers sued PMI over concerns about the use of lead in the base of the company’s Stanley drinkware. A judge dismissed the proposed class action complaint in January but left the door open for plaintiffs in the proposed class action suit to file an amended complaint that would reignite the legal battle.

Following nearly 40 reports of burn injuries, PMI issued a recall on about 2.6 million of its Switchback and Trigger Action travel tumblers in December. In response to the recall, consumers have filed at least two proposed class action lawsuits.

PMI has also gone on the offensive legally, joining forces with Amazon to sue third-party sellers on the Amazon marketplace that it accuses of selling counterfeit Stanley drinkware.

While perhaps past its viral peak, PMI’s Stanley drinkware has proved wildly popular at retail and in the promotional products industry over the last couple of years – so much so that ASI Media named PMI’s Stanley Quencher the 2023 Product of the Year for the promo industry.