The Death Wish Coffee lawsuit against Liquid Death is a trademark infringement case filed on October 7, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which Death Wish Coffee claims that Liquid Death’s plan to sell “death”-branded coffee products would confuse consumers and dilute marks Death Wish has used in the coffee category since 2012.1CaseFilingsAlert.com. Death Wish Coffee v. Liquid Death Complaint
What Set Off the Lawsuit
No Liquid Death coffee has hit shelves. The fight started at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In May 2025, Liquid Death filed new applications covering coffee and coffee-based beverages, including one for “Liquid Death Deathuccino.”2Gerben Law Firm. Death Wish Coffee Sues Liquid Death in Battle Over Death Branding
Death Wish’s lawyers sent an objection letter on July 29, 2025. Liquid Death’s in-house counsel asked for more time and assured Death Wish it would not launch any coffee products in the interim. On September 5, 2025, Liquid Death responded formally, confirming that its coffee products were “forthcoming” and would be “available in the marketplace,” while denying any likelihood of consumer confusion and attaching a visual comparison of the two brands’ packaging. A month later, Death Wish sued.1CaseFilingsAlert.com. Death Wish Coffee v. Liquid Death Complaint
The Claims Death Wish Is Making
The complaint, docketed as Case No. 2:25-cv-9583, rests on federally registered marks including “Death Wish Coffee Co.” (registered in 2014 and 2017), “Death Cups” (2018), and “Gingerdead,” all covering coffee and coffee-related products. Several have achieved incontestable status under federal trademark law, which strengthens them in litigation.1CaseFilingsAlert.com. Death Wish Coffee v. Liquid Death Complaint
Death Wish advances three theories of harm. The first is likelihood of consumer confusion: the similarity between “Death Wish” and “Liquid Death” or “Deathuccino,” combined with overlapping product categories, skull imagery, dark packaging, and gothic typography, would lead buyers to think the products share a source. That claim includes a reverse confusion argument, discussed below.3Daily Coffee News. Death Wish Coffee Alleges Trademark Infringement Against Liquid Death The second is trademark dilution, arguing that Liquid Death’s branding would blur and weaken the distinctiveness of the Death Wish marks in coffee. The third is trade dress infringement, targeting Liquid Death’s overall visual look — dark cans, bold fonts, and skull motifs — as mimicking Death Wish’s presentation.1CaseFilingsAlert.com. Death Wish Coffee v. Liquid Death Complaint
Death Wish is asking the court for preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Liquid Death from using any death-formative mark on coffee. It also wants the court to block four pending Liquid Death trademark applications at the USPTO. On the money side, the company is seeking damages, treble damages for willful infringement, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.1CaseFilingsAlert.com. Death Wish Coffee v. Liquid Death Complaint
How Liquid Death Has Responded
Liquid Death’s public reaction has been dismissive. The company posted on Instagram that it has “no real plans to actually launch a coffee” and used the moment to promote its upcoming energy drink line.4Sprudge. Death Wish Coffee Sues Liquid Death Over the Right to Death Itself In a formal statement, it argued that “no single brand can corner the term ‘Death,'” pointing to other companies across markets that use similar themes.5FoodBev. Death Wish Coffee Files Trademark Infringement Suit Against Liquid Death To another outlet, the company said plainly: “We have no plans right now to actually launch a ready-to-drink coffee.”6CFO Dive. Liquid Death Swipes PepsiCo Alum CFO Growth Push
That posture creates an unusual dynamic. The suit was filed on the strength of trademark applications and stated intent to expand, before any allegedly infringing product actually reached consumers.
Why Reverse Confusion Matters Here
In a typical trademark case, a smaller company copies a larger one’s brand to piggyback on its recognition. This case flips that. Death Wish is the older brand in coffee, but Liquid Death is far larger and better known overall. Death Wish’s concern is that if Liquid Death starts selling death-branded coffee, consumers will assume Death Wish is the imitator, treating it as a knockoff of the bigger company rather than the original.
The theory has recent precedent in the beverage space. In 2022, a jury awarded Stone Brewing $56 million in a reverse confusion case against Molson Coors, finding that Keystone beer’s rebrand with heavy emphasis on the word “stone” infringed the craft brewer’s trademark.7Foster Garvey. Stone Brewing Co. v. Molson Coors Brewing Company In the Ninth Circuit, where the Death Wish case sits, the key factors in a reverse confusion analysis are the strength of the marks, how similar they are, and how closely related the products are.8KB Intellectual Property. Trying Trademark Reverse Confusion Case
Trademark attorney Josh Gerben called Death Wish’s claim “legitimate,” noting that very few companies use “death” in coffee and that Death Wish has held that corner of the market for more than a decade. He suggested the dispute could end in a coexistence agreement limiting how each company sells coffee, or a buyout of Death Wish’s rights.2Gerben Law Firm. Death Wish Coffee Sues Liquid Death in Battle Over Death Branding Liquid Death could counter that its own brand is distinctive enough visually and in the marketplace that no reasonable consumer would confuse the two.
Where the Case Stands
As of mid-2026, the case remains active. No ruling on the requested preliminary injunction has been reported, and Liquid Death has not publicly launched a coffee product. The litigation is expected to involve consumer surveys and expert testimony, and legal observers have estimated a 12- to 24-month timeline if the parties do not settle first.