Buc-ee’s Sues Mickey’s Over Moose Logo as Texas Giant Eyes Louisiana Expansion Through Ruston

Buc-ee’s, Ltd., the Texas-based travel center chain, filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit on February 18, 2026, against Coles IP Holdings, LLC, the Ohio parent company of Mickey’s convenience stores, alleging that Mickey’s cartoon moose mascot and new red-badge branding too closely resemble Buc-ee’s famous beaver logo. 

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, with the case listed as 3:2026cv00414, alleging violations of the Lanham Act and seeking injunctive relief and damages. The lawsuit lands as Buc-ee’s prepares its first Ohio location for an April 6, 2026 opening — and as two Louisiana stores in Ruston and Lafayette remain under construction.

Quick Case Snapshot

• Plaintiff: Buc-ee’s, Ltd. (Lake Jackson, Texas)
• Defendant: Coles IP Holdings, LLC — parent company of Mickey’s (formerly Mickey Mart), Milan, Ohio
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
• Case Number: 3:2026cv00414
• Filing Date: February 18, 2026
• Judge: Not yet assigned as of March 4, 2026
• Claims Alleged: Federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cancellation of trademark registrations
• Relief Sought: Permanent injunction blocking Mickey’s from using the disputed logos, destruction of all related materials, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees. Buc-ee’s is demanding a jury trial.
• Current Status: Early stage — complaint filed; Coles IP Holdings has not yet filed a response

What the Lawsuit Alleges

Buc-ee’s filed its federal lawsuit on February 18 against Coles IP Holdings, LLC, the Milan, Ohio company that operates the Mickey’s convenience store chain, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Mickey’s logos feature a cartoon moose facing right with wide eyes and a smile on top of a round background. Buc-ee’s alleges that the design too closely resembles its own beaver mascot marks.

Mickey’s logo features the smiling moose inside of a red hexagon, which Buc-ee’s legal team argues is too similar to its own logo — a smiling beaver inside of a yellow circle. Buc-ee’s contends that the issue goes beyond the animal mascots themselves.

Buc-ee’s claims that Mickey’s predominant use of red in its uniforms, signage, and branding elements could confuse consumers. The complaint also targets Mickey’s decision to shorten its name. Buc-ee’s takes issue with the name the Ohio-based chain is transitioning to — “Mickey’s” — claiming it closely resembles the Buc-ee’s trademark.

In its own words, Buc-ee’s argues in court filings that the logos “incorporate a cartoon animal facing right with wide eyes and a smile, overlaying a round background,” and that “consumers are likely to perceive a connection or association as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the parties’ products and services, when in fact none exists.”

The Defendant: Who Is Mickey’s?

Mickey’s operates 42 stores, all in Ohio. Mickey’s locations feature branded merchandise such as socks, hats, balls, and Christmas tree ornaments, and offer food items under the banner Mickey’s Chicken & Deli. Some locations include fast food franchises like Taco Bell and Dunkin’. The company is based in Milan, Ohio.

The mascot named Mickey the Moose has been featured since 2020, but the chain reapplied for a new logo in June 2025, against a backdrop that Buc-ee’s says is similar to the Buc-ee’s beaver. Coles IP Holdings has not yet filed a response to the complaint.

The Two-Front Legal Strategy — TTAB and Federal Court

This lawsuit did not emerge without warning. Buc-ee’s previously filed a petition to cancel Mickey’s trademark registrations with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on August 11, 2025.

The new federal lawsuit runs alongside that TTAB cancellation bid, giving Buc-ee’s a two-front strategy as both the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and a federal judge weigh how close is too close under trademark law. Running administrative and federal court proceedings simultaneously is a recognized enforcement approach in complex trademark disputes — it applies pressure through parallel proceedings and ensures that even if one avenue fails, the other may succeed.

Buc-ee’s General Counsel Jeff Nadalo stated publicly that “Buc-ee’s will not stand idly by while others infringe upon its intellectual property rights it has worked tirelessly to build and protect.”

Current Status and What Happens Next

A future court date has not yet been scheduled. Here is the typical progression from this early stage:

• Answer or motion to dismiss — Coles IP Holdings must respond to the complaint, either by filing an answer admitting or denying the allegations, or by filing a motion to dismiss arguing the claims lack legal merit.
• Likelihood of confusion analysis — the central legal question in any trademark case is whether consumers are likely to confuse the two marks. Courts apply a multi-factor test that considers the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the goods or services, the sophistication of consumers, and the strength of the plaintiff’s brand.
• Preliminary injunction — Buc-ee’s may seek an emergency court order requiring Mickey’s to immediately stop using the disputed logos while the case is pending. Given the April 6 Ohio Buc-ee’s opening, timing may be a factor.
• TTAB proceedings — the separate USPTO cancellation proceedings continue independently and could result in cancellation of Mickey’s trademark registrations regardless of the federal case outcome.
• Settlement or trial — many trademark disputes resolve through negotiated settlement, often involving a rebranding agreement and, in some cases, monetary compensation.

Related article: Arby’s Lawsuits 2026, Meat Portions, Shrinkflation, and a Franchise Data Breach, What Consumers Need to Know

Why Louisiana’s Ruston Location Is Watching Closely

Buc-ee’s still has not opened a location in Louisiana, but the company is already in the headlines for this federal trademark lawsuit. Ruston is positioned to become the first Buc-ee’s stop for plenty of drivers from Shreveport-Bossier heading east on I-20. When a brand becomes a road trip destination, the mascot is not just cute — it is the front door to the whole business.

One of the Louisiana locations will be along I-20 in north Louisiana near Ruston. The other will be built near the interchange of I-49 and I-10 at the Louisiana Avenue exit in Lafayette. Neither the Ruston location nor the Lafayette location is open, and they are still under construction. The current forecast for the Ruston store suggests it will open early next year, while some informed sources suggest the Lafayette store may not open until 2028.

It is highly unlikely that the outcome of this case will have any measured effect on the current plans to grow the Buc-ee’s brand in Louisiana. No changes to the construction schedule or proposed timelines for both the Lafayette and the Ruston stores have been announced.

Buc-ee’s Trademark Enforcement Track Record

The Mickey’s lawsuit is the latest in a well-documented pattern of aggressive trademark enforcement by Buc-ee’s. Since registering its first mark in 2007, Buc-ee’s has filed 15 oppositions with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and 11 lawsuits for trademark infringement. Buc-ee’s boasts a large trademark portfolio with 62 U.S. registrations, including 12 trademark registrations protecting its beaver logo alone.

Recent enforcement actions give important context:

• Barc-ee’s (Missouri, March 2025): Buc-ee’s sued a dog park and cafe over the similar name and logo. Barc-ee’s later closed pending a brand refresh.
• Duckees (Missouri, November 2024): Buc-ee’s sued a liquor store over similar branding; the case was settled and dismissed in 2025.
• Super Fuels (North Texas, January 2025): Buc-ee’s argued a cartoon dog logo was too similar to its beaver mascot.
• Born United, Owl & Anchor, Prometheus Esoterica (May–June 2025): Buc-ee’s sued three apparel companies for selling merchandise with logos it described as “confusingly similar” to its beaver. All three lawsuits remain open.

Patent attorney John Rizvi noted: “If you fail to enforce your trademarks, that gives competitors the ability to argue maybe it’s been abandoned. The first time you see an infringement, you really have to take an aggressive stance. Otherwise, that emboldens other competitors to jump in and do the same.”

What Makes This Case Legally Significant

Unlike most of Buc-ee’s prior trademark disputes, which involved small businesses or apparel sellers, this case pits the Texas giant against a 42-location convenience chain with its own established regional brand identity — and its own active trademark registrations.

The next steps will likely involve the usual trademark questions: how similar the marks appear when viewed quickly on a sign, how strong Buc-ee’s brand recognition is, and whether the evidence supports a real risk of consumer confusion.

Buc-ee’s argues that modern branding — especially online and through merchandise — can create confusion even when the companies’ store footprints don’t overlap geographically. Mickey’s 42 locations are all in Ohio, while Buc-ee’s operates 54 stores mostly across the South and is expanding nationally. Whether geographic separation weakens the consumer confusion argument is one of the key legal questions this case will test.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Buc-ee’s suing Mickey’s over? 

Buc-ee’s filed a federal lawsuit against Coles IP Holdings, the parent company of Mickey’s, alleging that Mickey’s cartoon moose mascot is too similar to the Buc-ee’s beaver, that the rebranding from “Mickey Mart” to “Mickey’s” causes consumer confusion, and that Mickey’s heavy use of red in signage and uniforms further compounds that confusion.

Where was the lawsuit filed and what is the case number?

 The complaint was filed on February 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The case is listed as 3:2026cv00414.

What is Buc-ee’s asking the court to do?

 Buc-ee’s is asking the court to permanently block Mickey’s from using the disputed logos, require the destruction of all associated materials, and award treble damages along with attorneys’ fees. Buc-ee’s is also demanding a jury trial.

Has Mickey’s responded to the lawsuit? 

Coles IP Holdings has not yet filed a response to the complaint as of the date of this article.

Will the lawsuit affect Buc-ee’s Louisiana locations in Ruston and Lafayette?

 It is highly unlikely that the outcome of this case will have any measured effect on the current plans to build Buc-ee’s locations in Louisiana. No changes to the construction schedule or proposed timelines for the Ruston or Lafayette stores have been announced.

How many trademark lawsuits has Buc-ee’s filed? 

Since registering its first mark in 2007, Buc-ee’s has filed 15 oppositions with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and 11 federal lawsuits for trademark infringement, with 62 total U.S. trademark registrations including 12 protecting its beaver logo alone.

Last Updated: March 4, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. Allegations in a complaint are not findings of fact. All parties are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise in court. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah