Buc-ee’s Mickey’s Trademark Lawsuit Settled, Confidential Agreement Ends Ohio Moose Logo Dispute

Buc-ee’s and Ohio convenience-store chain Mickey’s have settled their federal trademark lawsuit over Mickey’s cartoon moose logo, ending an eight-month dispute without a public court ruling on whether the two brands were legally confusing.

The parties reached a confidential settlement agreement on September 15, 2026, during a court-ordered settlement conference, according to reporting based on court records. The lawsuit had been pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio since Buc-ee’s filed its complaint on February 18, 2026. (Justia Dockets & Filings)

The settlement does not mean a court found that Mickey’s infringed Buc-ee’s trademarks. The case ended through an agreement between the parties, so the underlying trademark allegations were not decided at trial.

The financial terms have not been publicly disclosed. It also remains unclear whether Mickey’s must change its name, redesign its moose mascot, alter its red branding, or take any other action under the confidential agreement. Both companies continued displaying their respective branding in public-facing materials after the settlement was reported. 

Quick Facts: Buc-ee’s vs. Mickey’s Trademark Lawsuit

Detail	Information
Plaintiff	Buc-ee’s, Ltd.
Defendant	Coles IP Holdings, LLC, parent company of Mickey’s
Court	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Case Number	3:26-cv-00414-JRK
Lawsuit Filed	February 18, 2026
Main Dispute	Alleged similarity between Buc-ee’s beaver branding and Mickey’s moose branding
Settlement	Reached September 15, 2026
Settlement Terms	Confidential
Settlement Amount	Not publicly disclosed
Court Ruling on Infringement	No
Consumer Settlement	No
Consumer Claim Form	No
Consumer Claim Deadline	None
Current Status	Parties reached a confidential settlement

The federal docket identifies the case as Buc-ee’s, Ltd. v. Coles IP Holdings, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00414, and lists the matter as a trademark dispute under federal trademark law. 

What Happened in the Buc-ee’s Mickey’s Trademark Lawsuit?

Buc-ee’s filed the lawsuit against Coles IP Holdings, the Ohio company behind Mickey’s convenience stores, in February 2026.

Buc-ee’s argued that Mickey’s branding was too similar to its established trademark portfolio. The complaint focused particularly on Mickey’s cartoon moose mascot and the visual similarities Buc-ee’s said existed between the two companies’ logos.

According to Buc-ee’s complaint, both brands used a cartoon animal facing to the right with wide eyes and a smile positioned over a rounded background. Buc-ee’s also pointed to Mickey’s use of red in its signage, uniforms and other branding.

Buc-ee’s argued that these similarities could cause consumers to believe that the two businesses were affiliated or otherwise connected.

The complaint also pointed to Mickey’s transition from its previous Mickey Mart branding to the shorter Mickey’s name.

Buc-ee’s was seeking court orders preventing use of the disputed branding, destruction of allegedly infringing materials, damages and other relief under federal trademark law.

Why Did Mickey’s Disagree With Buc-ee’s?

Mickey’s did not simply accept the allegations.

Coles IP Holdings filed an answer and counterclaim in April 2026. The company disputed Buc-ee’s allegations and challenged the Texas chain’s claims.

The dispute became particularly notable because Mickey’s argued that the two mascots represented different animals and that consumers would not reasonably mistake a moose for Buc-ee’s beaver.

That argument was summarized in Mickey’s court filings with the phrase: “A moose is not a beaver.”

Mickey’s also accused Buc-ee’s of improper litigation and sought relief through its counterclaims.

Because the parties settled before trial, however, a federal judge or jury never determined whether the Mickey’s branding actually infringed Buc-ee’s trademarks. 

When Did Buc-ee’s and Mickey’s Settle?

The parties reached their settlement on September 15, 2026, during a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay.

The federal court had previously ordered the parties to participate in a settlement conference after the case entered its standard litigation track. A June 25 court order scheduled the settlement conference for September 15. 

News reports subsequently confirmed that the conference resulted in a confidential settlement.

The settlement brought the dispute to an end without a trial or judicial decision determining whether Mickey’s infringed Buc-ee’s trademarks. 

How Much Money Did Mickey’s Pay Buc-ee’s?

The amount, if any, has not been publicly disclosed.

The parties’ settlement is confidential. Available reporting does not identify a settlement payment, licensing arrangement or other financial terms.

Therefore, claims that Mickey’s paid a specific amount to Buc-ee’s should not be published unless the parties or a court filing later confirms the figure.

The settlement amount is also not money available to consumers.

Does Mickey’s Have to Change Its Moose Logo?

That has not been publicly established.

One of the biggest unanswered questions is whether Mickey’s agreed to modify its branding as part of the confidential settlement.

Reports following the settlement did not disclose whether Mickey’s must:

• Change the Mickey’s name;
• Redesign Mickey the Moose;
• Change the red color scheme;
• Remove existing signs;
• Destroy merchandise;
• Stop using particular trademarks; or
• Take other branding-related steps.

Public-facing versions of the companies’ branding remained visible after the settlement was reported. 

Unless the settlement terms become public, it would be speculative to say that Mickey’s has been forced to rebrand.

Did Buc-ee’s Win the Trademark Lawsuit?

Not through a court judgment.

Buc-ee’s filed trademark infringement claims against Coles IP Holdings, but the dispute was resolved through a confidential settlement rather than a trial.

That distinction matters.

A settlement generally means the parties agreed to resolve their dispute without obtaining a judicial ruling on the underlying allegations. It should not automatically be described as a court finding that one side was right and the other side was wrong.

The federal court therefore did not issue a final ruling determining that Mickey’s infringed Buc-ee’s trademarks.

Likewise, the settlement does not establish that Buc-ee’s trademark claims were meritless.

The parties agreed to resolve the dispute without having the court decide those questions.

What Was Buc-ee’s Claim About the Mickey’s Logo?

Buc-ee’s alleged that Mickey’s branding created a likelihood of consumer confusion.

The complaint described similarities involving the appearance and positioning of the cartoon mascots, including the animals facing right, their facial expressions and their placement within rounded logo designs. Buc-ee’s also pointed to Mickey’s use of red branding and the similarity it perceived between the companies’ commercial presentations.

The case therefore was not simply about whether both companies used an animal mascot.

The legal issue was whether the overall branding was sufficiently similar, in the context in which the businesses operated, that consumers could mistakenly believe the businesses were connected.

What Is a Trademark Infringement Lawsuit?

A trademark infringement lawsuit generally involves allegations that another party is using a trademark or branding in a way that is likely to cause consumer confusion about the source, sponsorship or affiliation of goods or services.

Trademark disputes can involve much more than identical names.

Courts can consider factors such as:

• The similarity of the marks;
• The relatedness of the businesses;
• How and where the marks are used;
• The strength of the existing trademark;
• Evidence of actual consumer confusion;
• The parties’ marketing channels; and
• The likely perception of consumers.

The exact test and weight given to individual factors can vary depending on the federal circuit and circumstances of the case.

In the Buc-ee’s-Mickey’s dispute, those questions were never resolved by a final trial judgment because the parties settled.

Was This a Class Action?

No.

The Buc-ee’s-Mickey’s lawsuit was a business-to-business trademark dispute.

Consumers were not plaintiffs or members of a certified class.

There is therefore no consumer settlement fund associated with this case.

Can Customers File a Claim in the Buc-ee’s Mickey’s Settlement?

No public consumer claim process exists.

The settlement involved Buc-ee’s and Coles IP Holdings, not a class of consumers.

There is:

• No consumer claim form;
• No public settlement website;
• No consumer payment;
• No claim deadline;
• No opt-out process for customers; and
• No settlement administrator distributing money to the public.

If you have seen a website claiming that customers can file a claim for money from the “Buc-ee’s Mickey’s settlement,” that claim should be treated cautiously unless it can be tied to an actual court-approved consumer settlement.

What Happens to the Federal Lawsuit Now?

The parties’ September 15 settlement resolves the underlying dispute, but the publicly available docket information retrieved for this article does not yet provide a final dismissal order reflecting the settlement.

The latest readily accessible federal docket record available through the court-docket source reviewed for this article was updated through August 5, 2026 and therefore does not itself display the September settlement filing. 

Accordingly, the safest description at this stage is that the parties have reached a confidential settlement, while the final procedural dismissal of the federal case should be confirmed from a subsequent court filing.

That distinction avoids incorrectly stating that the court has already entered a final dismissal order when that document has not been independently retrieved.

What Happens to Mickey’s After the Settlement?

The public information does not establish whether Mickey’s will make any branding changes.

Mickey’s has operated in Ohio for decades and has dozens of convenience-store locations throughout the state. Its Mickey the Moose branding predates the 2026 federal dispute.

The settlement may contain restrictions or obligations that are not public.

Until those terms are disclosed, readers should not assume that Mickey’s has either won the right to keep every element of its current branding or agreed to eliminate the moose mascot.

How Is the Mickey’s Settlement Different From the Teddy’s Market Lawsuit?

Buc-ee’s has also sued another convenience-store business over mascot branding.

In May 2026, Buc-ee’s sued Georgia-based Teddy’s Market, alleging similarities between Teddy’s cartoon mascot and Buc-ee’s beaver branding. That case is separate from the Mickey’s litigation and should not be confused with the September settlement.

What Does the Mickey’s Settlement Mean for Other Buc-ee’s Trademark Cases?

The settlement resolves only the dispute between Buc-ee’s and Coles IP Holdings.

It does not automatically determine the outcome of Buc-ee’s other trademark cases.

Buc-ee’s has pursued separate disputes involving other businesses and mascots, including cases involving Teddy’s Market and Beaver’s Mini Mart.

Each lawsuit turns on its own facts, trademarks, evidence and legal claims.

A settlement in the Mickey’s case therefore should not be treated as a ruling that all similar cartoon-animal branding infringes Buc-ee’s trademarks.

What Should Consumers Know About the Buc-ee’s Mickey’s Settlement?

For ordinary Buc-ee’s or Mickey’s customers, there is nothing to file and no settlement payment to claim.

This was an intellectual-property dispute between two businesses.

The most important development is that the parties chose to resolve the dispute privately rather than continue toward a trial that could have produced a judicial decision about the similarity between the two brands.

The financial terms and any required branding changes remain confidential.

Buc-ee’s vs. Mickey’s Lawsuit Timeline

Date	Development
August 11, 2025	Buc-ee’s filed a trademark cancellation proceeding involving Mickey’s registrations before the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
February 18, 2026	Buc-ee’s filed the federal trademark lawsuit against Coles IP Holdings.
March 2, 2026	Coles IP Holdings was served with the federal complaint.
April 22, 2026	Coles IP Holdings filed its answer and counterclaim.
June 11, 2026	The case was placed on the standard litigation track and referred for a future settlement conference.
June 25, 2026	The court scheduled a settlement conference for September 15, 2026.
September 15, 2026	Buc-ee’s and Coles IP Holdings reached a confidential settlement during the settlement conference.
October 2026	Settlement reported publicly; financial and branding terms remain undisclosed.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Buc-ee’s Mickey’s Settlement

Did Buc-ee’s settle the Mickey’s trademark lawsuit?

Yes. Buc-ee’s and Coles IP Holdings reached a confidential settlement on September 15, 2026, during a court-ordered settlement conference. 

How much was the Buc-ee’s Mickey’s settlement worth?

The settlement amount has not been publicly disclosed.

Does Mickey’s have to change its moose logo?

The publicly available reports do not disclose whether Mickey’s agreed to change its logo or other branding.

Did a judge rule that Mickey’s infringed Buc-ee’s trademark?

No. The parties settled before a trial or final merits ruling.

Can Buc-ee’s customers file a settlement claim?

No. This was not a consumer class action and there is no public consumer claim process.

Is there a Buc-ee’s Mickey’s settlement deadline?

No consumer settlement deadline exists because there is no consumer claims process.

What was Mickey’s argument against Buc-ee’s?

Mickey’s disputed Buc-ee’s allegations and argued that its moose branding was distinguishable from Buc-ee’s beaver branding. The company also filed counterclaims against Buc-ee’s.

What is the Buc-ee’s Mickey’s case number?

The federal lawsuit is Buc-ee’s, Ltd. v. Coles IP Holdings, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00414-JRK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Is the Mickey’s lawsuit the same as the Teddy’s Market lawsuit?

No. Mickey’s and Teddy’s Market are separate defendants in separate trademark cases filed by Buc-ee’s. The Mickey’s case involved a cartoon moose in Ohio, while the Teddy’s Market case involves a different business and mascot in Georgia. 

The Bottom Line

The Buc-ee’s vs. Mickey’s trademark lawsuit has been settled, ending the federal dispute over Mickey’s moose mascot and branding.

But this was not a consumer settlement.

There is no public payout, claim form or deadline for Buc-ee’s or Mickey’s customers. The settlement amount and any obligations concerning Mickey’s branding remain confidential.

Most importantly, the settlement does not establish that Mickey’s was legally found to have infringed Buc-ee’s trademarks. The court never reached a final merits decision because the parties resolved the dispute themselves.

Last Updated: October 2, 2026

About the Author

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, Legal Content Researcher. This article is based on court records, trademark filings and verified reporting. It is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Sources: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio docket; USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board records; Houston Chronicle; NBC4/WCMH reporting.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Legal claims, settlement terms and court proceedings can change as new filings become available.