Stanley tumblers have become a social media sensation, inspiring everything from viral trends to long lines at retailers. However, in November 2025, the company behind the iconic drinkware—Pacific Market International (PMI)—filed a high-profile lawsuit against discount retailer Five Below, accusing it of parasitic and intentional copying by selling knockoff tumblers that allegedly infringe on Stanley’s protected design patents, trademarks, and trade dress.
The Lawsuit at a Glance
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 6, PMI’s lawsuit claims that Five Below’s Hydraquench and HydraSip tumblers are substantially the same as Stanley’s patented Quencher and IceFlow products. The legal complaint points to PMI’s protection of two U.S. design patents—D805,838 (lid) and D955,173 (beverage container)—and asserts that Five Below intentionally chose designs and features that would make its products difficult to distinguish from authentic Stanley tumblers.
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 an injunction to stop further sales, arguing that continued duplication erodes Stanley’s distinctiveness and reputation.
Legal Context for Brands: Copycat Risk or Coincidence?
PMI’s case extends beyond basic resemblance, focusing on market confusion, intentional imitation for commercial gain, and dilution of protected design features. “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 Stanley, according to PMI in its filing.
Trademarks and design patents protect both the look and branding of products. In the Stanley lawsuit, protected elements include the shape, lid construction, and even branding cues. For businesses, the message is clear: Replicating trademarked products like Stanley tumblers without proper authorization would likely be considered trademark infringement and is generally not legal
Business Impact: Why This Matters
Many brands look for “inspiration” from viral products, but legal experts warn that the line between inspiration and infringement can be thin and costly. Key risk points include:
- Likelihood of consumer confusion—if buyers can’t easily differentiate products, the imitator is exposed.
- Intentional copying for lower price—if design choices seem calculated to piggyback on a rival’s success, courts may find unfair competition or unjust enrichment.
- Actual dilution of brand image—Stanley argues that continued sales of Five Below’s tumblers will damage its reputation and make its iconic features less recognizable.
“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 suit notes.
Trademark Disputes: The Stanley Name Battle
Separately, in 2025, Stanley Black & Decker initiated another lawsuit against PMI, alleging trademark infringement and breach of contract related to the use of the Stanley name—once associated primarily with tools, now famous for tumblers.
Stanley Black & Decker’s lawsuit demands damages, corrective advertising, and product recalls, pressing PMI to clearly mark its drinkware as Pacific Market International products.
“We own the ‘Stanley’ brand in the food and beverage container category,” said Matt Navarro, global president of PMI WW Brands, LLC. “Stanley Black & Decker’s complaint takes aim at our century-old Stanley brand, apparently seeking to capitalize on our success and undermine over a century of innovation and hard work developing our food and beverage containment products.”
Business Lessons: How to Avoid a Stanley Situation
The Stanley/Five Below lawsuit is a textbook case for brand managers:
- Do not copy the protected shape or design features of successful products.
- Build in product differentiation and unique branding to avoid confusion.
- Secure licensing or permission for use of any trademarked names or design elements.
- Monitor competitors and the market for infringing products and take swift action.
- Communicate product materials and safety transparently to avoid consumer lawsuits.
Trademark and patent enforcement protects market position, prevents dilution, and can be decisive in court.
Legal Guidance: What to Do if Accused
If your company is accused of copying or infringing a competitor’s product, legal advice is critical. Respond with documentation of design decisions, consider a redesign, and avoid any implication of intent to copy. Experienced trademark counsel can help navigate negotiations—or court proceedings.
Conclusion: Brands Face Big Risks When Iconic Products Boom
The Stanley tumbler’s meteoric rise has made it a target for copycats, competitors, and legal action. For brands, the lesson is clear: innovation may attract inspiration, but it must be balanced with legal due diligence, unique design, and robust trademark enforcement.
