Local News

Dunkin’ sues vape company for trademark infringement over Vapin’ Donuts products

The lawsuit not only asks for damages and for the vape company to stop producing and marketing Vapin’ Donuts products, but also that the company destroy all such products and marketing.

Canton-based coffee shop chain Dunkin’ is suing a New York vape company for trademark infringement over its Vapin’ Donuts product line, which uses similar coloring and lettering to the iconic Dunkin’ logo.

Filed Sept. 22 in a New York federal court, the lawsuit asks for a jury trial, and seeks damages from Singh Handicraft Corp., which manufactures and sells the products. It also asks for a judge to grant an injunction ordering Singh Handicraft to not only stop marketing and sales of the Vapin’ Donuts products, but to also destroy existing marketing and products. 

Dunkin’s trademarks “serve to identify to the public certain goods and services that are offered by Dunkin’ alone, and the goods and services offered in connection with the DUNKIN’ Marks are regarded by the public as being [offered or approved by] Dunkin’,” the lawsuit reads. 


“Defendants’ adoption and use, in bad faith, of the nearly identical Infringing Mark, without Dunkin’s authorization or consent…is likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive the public as to the true source, origin, affiliation, or sponsorship of Defendants’ goods.”

The lawsuit alleges that the Vapin’ Donuts logo is “nearly identical” to Dunkin’s, as it includes both Dunkin’s “distinct orange and pink color scheme and rounded font.”

“Indeed, Defendants have merely replaced the term ‘VAPIN’’ for DUNKIN’ in the DUNKIN’ DONUTS mark, and an electronic vaporizer for a coffee cup in the Coffee Icon,” the lawsuit reads. 

Dunkin’ is suing a vape company for trademark infringement over its Vapin’ Donuts product line which uses a logo similar to Dunkin’s iconic logo. – U.S. Federal Court

Dunkin’ alleges in the lawsuit that Singh Handicraft not only used the logos it considers to be infringing upon its rights to market their product, but also tried to trademark the new icon. The lawsuit asks a judge to order the vape company to abandon this trademark application. 

But it’s not just the logo that’s a problem, the lawsuit alleges. The Vapin’ Donuts products – one that’s shaped like a coffee cup and one that looks like a glazed donut – are also allegedly infringing on Dunkin’s trademark rights because they look like Dunkin’ products.

Dunkin’ is suing a vape company for trademark infringement over its Vapin’ Donuts product line, which includes products that look like a coffee cup and a donut. – U.S. Federal Court

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges, Singh Handicraft allegedly worked to create an even greater association with Dunkin’ by offering vape flavors identical to Dunkin’s, such as white mocha. 


Another way the vape company tries to link the two brands is by using the same hashtags Dunkin’ uses when marketing on Instagram, the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit includes pictures of Vapin’ Donuts’ posts, which show it using hashtags such as #coffee, #drip, and #donutsforlife.

Dunkin’ is suing a vape company for trademark infringement over its Vapin’ Donuts product line. Vapin’ Donuts has been using the same tags as Dunkin’ in its Instagram ads. – U.S. District Court
More local news

The lawsuit alleges that people who buy Vapin’ Donuts products have said they did so because of the association with Dunkin’, citing comments from a vape reviewer on YouTube. It also chastises Singh Handicraft for allegedly “attempting to target underaged consumers with the flavors and shape of the products,” something the FTC has said is illegal.

“Defendants’ use of the Infringing Mark in connection with such morally reprehensible and illegal conduct harms Dunkin’s reputation and the goodwill associated with the DUNKIN’ Marks,” the lawsuit reads.

Neither Dunkin’ nor Singh Handicraft responded to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

Read the full lawsuit below:

Dunkin Trademark Infringement Lawsuit by Susannah Sudborough on Scribd


This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com