it's hard to get rid of a foreign TM owner's complaint at the motion to dismiss stage despite territoriality

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.