Kasem Sleem, Unsplash
A Boston-based jewelry company, with a storefront steps away from Seyfarth’s Boston offices, is at the center of a trademark dispute that is all too familiar. In Lagos, Inc. v. Coastal Caviar, LLC, Case No. 2:26‑cv‑00447 (E.D. Pa) an up-and-coming brand made popular by social media meets a Goliath-like competitor that wants to shut down the newcomer. At first blush, this may seem cut and dry because the marks at issue, CAVIAR (a mark used by Lagos) and COASTAL CAVIAR (a mark used by, you guessed it – Coastal Caviar) share an identical term, and the goods offered under each are jewelry. But this case may not be like shooting fish(roe) in a barrel. CAVIAR evokes a certain type of jewelry and may be entitled to a limited scope of protection. The parties’ goods may also be distinguishable. This could open the door for potential coexistence.
Lagos has been selling its signature CAVIAR brand jewelry since 1989, and it secured a federal registration for its mark in 1992. The company’s textured, beaded designs became somewhat iconic, appearing everywhere from department stores to red carpets. Lagos reports more than $250 million in CAVIAR jewelry sales and over $40 million in advertising investment supporting the brand. The CAVIAR brand appears to be central to the company’s identity.
Coastal Caviar by contrast, launched more recently, selling handcrafted charm necklaces and bracelets online. In December 2023, it began selling those goods under its COASTAL CAVIAR mark, which Lagos says is confusingly similar to its own. And critically, Coastal Caviar uses its mark on products in the same channels of trade: jewelry.
Coastal Caviar filed a trademark application for its mark in late 2024. This prompted Lagos to file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) a Letter of Protest, i.e., a letter providing evidence to support a potential refusal. The USPTO issued a refusal to register COASTAL CAVIAR based on Lagos’s prior CAVIAR registration. Coastal Caviar ultimately abandoned the application but continued using its mark online and at a brick-and-mortar shop in Boston’s Seaport neighborhood. The company is slated to open a second location next month.
Lagos has spent decades building the reputation of its CAVIAR jewelry line, supported by its federal registration and extensive nationwide sales and advertising. But before assuming that Coastal Caviar should rebrand, it’s worth considering the merits of the case and whether the marks may peacefully coexist in the market, particularly because CAVIAR may not be provided a broad scope of protection for jewelry.
Lagos’s CAVIAR mark is long‑used, and its registration is incontestable, i.e., it cannot be challenged on certain grounds, including mere descriptiveness. But Lagos acknowledges that the term caviar refers to the look of its beaded jewelry designs. The company describes its signature jewelry style as “fish‑roe‑like beading,” meaning caviar arguably has a suggestive or even descriptive quality for this aesthetic. Conversely, Coastal Caviar appears to have adopted its mark as a reference to a love of the ocean. Separately, the word caviar may mean something to be considered the best of its kind. Accordingly, caviar evokes a high-quality product and may be considered laudatory. Such terms are generally considered weak when it comes to trademarks.
If a term describes, hints at, or touts a product or its features, it may be entitled to a narrower scope of protection than those that do not. That doesn’t eliminate Lagos’ rights, but it may open space for coexistence, especially where brands can differentiate themselves.
Lagos also alleges that the goods are targeted to identical consumers. But the price points may suggest otherwise as many of Lagos’s CAVIAR goods cost thousands of dollars while COASTAL CAVIAR goods appear to predominantly cost hundreds of dollars or less. The difference in price may attract distinct consumers. Also, the high cost of some of Lagos’s goods may cause consumers to take more care when making purchasing decisions. These factors may weigh against a likelihood of confusion.
In its lawsuit Lagos seeks broad injunctive relief, profits, and other remedies. But enforcing a potentially suggestive mark against a younger brand using a CAVIAR mark in a different conceptual way (ocean‑inspired vs. bead‑texture‑inspired) creates litigation uncertainty. This may leave room for carefully structured coexistence—one that limits confusion while allowing the marks to coexist and both brands to thrive.
Trademark coexistence agreements often succeed when brands craft mutually protective guardrails. This may include restrictions on how the mark COASTAL CAVIAR may appear, where Coastal Caviar may offer its goods, the price points of Coastal Caviar’s goods, and limitations regarding specific types of jewelry marketed under the COASTAL CAVIAR mark. If an ongoing coexistence agreement proves unreachable, Coastal Caviar could seek to negotiate a temporary coexistence period to shift toward a new long‑term mark without abrupt disruption.
This case illustrates a lesson for emerging companies: even where another brand’s mark appears dominant, the path forward may not always be binary (rebrand or fight). Sometimes, the smartest move is to meet in the middle. If a coexistence agreement can be reached here, maybe the parties can share champagne and caviar.
