Barton Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Tea-Serving Bus Company for Violation of IP Rights

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada recently issued a detailed decision and order granting Barton’s client a preliminary injunction in a case involving claims of trademark infringement and trade dress infringement. (Go New York Tours, Inc. d/b/a Tea Around Town v. Tea on the Strip, LLC. Case No. 2:25-cv-00279-RFB-EJY.)

Barton’s client, Go New York Tours, Inc. (GoNY), offers a “Tea Around Town” experience where customers can ride a double-decker tour bus around New York City while sightseeing and enjoying a tea party with beverages and finger foods.

The defendant in the case, Tea on the Strip, LLC, offers a similar experience in Las Vegas and operates buses with similar trade dress design elements as GoNY’s buses. The Court’s order notes that GoNY is exclusively licensed to use the ‘Tea Around Town’ mark and that the experience includes distinctive branding, namely the interior and exterior designs of the tour buses, which include elements such as florals, sparkles, pearls, and a color scheme of pink, white, and gold.

On February 11, 2025, GoNY filed a complaint alleging that Tea on the Strip had violated its intellectual property rights by copying aspects of its Tea Around Town trademark and trade dress. GoNY sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Tea on the Strip from continuing to use these elements when operating its business.

In its order, the Court engaged in a detailed analysis of the factors and standards that had to be satisfied in order to prove a claim for trademark infringement and trade dress infringement.

A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must make a “clear showing” that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. The majority of the Court’s order focused on the first requirement regarding the likelihood of success on the merits of GoNY’s infringement claims. Among other things, Barton and its client demonstrated the items below in a manner the Court found satisfied the rigorous requirements that needed to be met to issue the preliminary injunction.

Trademark Infringement

In order to prevail on a trademark infringement claim, a plaintiff must show that the alleged infringement is likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers. To evaluate this, the Court considers eight factors known as the “Sleekcraft” factors from the 1979 Ninth Circuit case AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats. The Court found that GoNY’s claims satisfied these eight factors in the following ways:

• The strength of the mark – GoNY’s significant expenditures on advertising and Tea Around Town’s association with celebrities and “TikTok fame” helped to render it a strong mark.
• The similarity of the marks – Both companies’ marks had similarity in sound and meaning, while also using the same color scheme and gold framing.
• The relatedness of the goods – Both products being offered were experiential tours around a city where high tea was served on a bus.
• The marketing channels used by the companies – Both companies’ extensive use of social media to promote their products increased the likelihood of confusion between the two.
• The alleged infringer’s intent in selecting its mark – The defendants repeatedly patronized Tea on the Town shortly before choosing their own mark and establishing Tea on the Strip.
• Evidence of actual confusion – Social media comments revealed that some consumers believed Tea on the Strip to be related to Tea Around Town.
• The likelihood of expansion into other markets – Tea Around Town operates in multiple cities and has plans for national and international expansion.
• The degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers of the good – The Tea Around Town experience is a relatively new concept marketed to unsophisticated consumers who are unlikely to have extensive experience with the product.

Trade Dress Infringement

In prevailing on the trade dress infringement claim, Barton and its client proved:

• That its claimed dress is nonfunctional – The trade dress does not serve either a utilitarian or an aesthetic functionality.
• That its claimed dress serves a source-identifying role either because it is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning – Tea Around Town’s unique aesthetic bus design has created a recognizable trade dress specifically related to its product of serving high tea on a bus, making it distinctive.
• That the defendant’s product or service creates a likelihood of consumer confusion – The aforementioned Sleekcraft factors weigh in favor of plaintiffs and point to the likelihood of consumer confusion.

The Barton team members handling this case included: Maurice Ross (Partner); Tara Aaron-Stelluto (Partner); George Pikus (Associate); Barak Bacharach (Associate); and Justin Cabanas (Paralegal).