By Teghan O'Connell
On February 17th, 2025, Stanley Black and Decker filed a breach of contract and trademark infringement lawsuit against Pacific Market International (PMI). Stanley claimed PMI (more commonly known as Stanley cups) has knowingly and intentionally violated a series of agreements between the two companies, dating back to 1966. They were set to limit the confusion of brands Stanley Black and Decker and PMI Stanley, formerly owned by a company titled Aladdin. Set in 1966 and reaffirmed in 2012, the terms set to limit the goods PMI Stanley can sell and how they are allowed to market their brand. [1]
[2] img 
[3] img
The agreement states that PMI is not allowed to use the name Stanley without PMI presenting next to it. The document outlines the specific limitations for PMI’s domain name and advertising strategies. According to the terms of the agreements, PMI Stanley is not allowed to refer to themselves or their brand as solely “Stanley,” and their use of the name could not be in the form of a proper noun. According to the agreement, PMI Stanley cannot stray from the sale of goods in the category of “food and beverage storage containers.” [4]
[5] img 
The suit alleges PMI has purposefully ignored the terms the two companies had previously outlined, following the Stanley cup’s increase in popularity in 2022. [6] The company now goes by the name “Stanley 1913” and uses language on their website explicitly banned in the agreement [“it is Stanley’s belief that...”]. In further violation of the agreements, PMI Stanley has also removed any easily found reference to their name (PMI) from the Stanley 1913 website. In August and September 2024, Stanley Black and Decker sent two letters to PMI Stanley, reminding them of the agreement and asking them to cease using the “Stanley” name. PMI Stanley ignored both letters. [7]
The crux of the suit is the potential reputational damage to Stanley Black and Decker caused by PMI Stanley. In recent months, PMI Stanley has had to recall 2.6 million cups due to safety concerns. This is the second safety concern associated with the PMI Stanley brand, the first being related to lead poisoning. Stanley Black and Decker claims reputational damage will be unfairly cast onto their products. They ask for monetary reparations and for the discontinued singular use of the brand name “Stanley,” asking that PMI refer to the brand as PMI Stanley. [8]
[1] Stanley Black and Decker, INC. v. Pacific Market International, LLC., Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00243
[2] Mallory Nikolaus, Stanley Cup Review: Is It Actually Worth The Hype?, Mary Nikolaus (Jan. 12, 2023), https://mallorynikolaus.com/stanley-cup-review/
[3] Stanley Black and Decker, 1/4 in. & 3/8 in. Drive Mechanic Tool Set (40 pc.), Stanley Black and Decker (Accessed Feb. 24, 2025), https://www.stanleytools.ca/product/stmt71648/14-38-drive-mechanic-tool-set-40-pc
[4] Stanley Black and Decker, INC. v. Pacific Market International, LLC., Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00243
[5] SewZanneDesigns, Vintage Aladdin Stanley A-944DH 1 Quart Thermos with Original Box, Etsy (Dec. 4, 2015), https://www.etsy.com/listing/259235411/vintage-aladdin-stanley-a-944dh-1-quart?show_sold_out_detail=1&ref=nla_listing_details
[6] Blake Brittain, Stanley Black & Decker sues Stanley cup maker over trademarks, Reuters (Feb. 18, 2025, 1:43 PM), https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/stanley-black-decker-sues-stanley-cup-maker-over-trademarks-2025-02-18/
[7] Stanley Black and Decker, INC. v. Pacific Market International, LLC., Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00243
[8] Marie J. Wilson, Stanley Black & Decker Sues Stanley Cup Maker Over Trademark Dispute, SmartRules (Feb. 18, 2025), https://blogs.smartrules.com/stanley-black-decker-sues-stanley-cup-maker-over-trademark-dispute/