The battle of the skulls
According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Death Wish Coffee alleges that Liquid Death’s recent trademark filings for coffee and coffee-flavored beverages infringe its own long-standing marks.
Death Wish Coffee, founded in 2012, built its reputation on being “the world’s strongest coffee.” The brand’s skull-and-crossbones logo and bold “DEATH WISH” name have become a key part of its identity: edgy, dark, and unapologetically caffeinated.
Liquid Death, meanwhile, launched in 2019 with a very different kind of product: canned mountain water. Its branding is just as striking: heavy-metal-inspired, tongue-in-cheek, and designed to “murder your thirst.”
Until now, the two companies have managed to coexist peacefully. Death Wish sold coffee. Liquid Death sold water. Two different markets, same dark humor.
But Death Wish’s complaint argues that this coexistence may soon “come to an end.” The company points to Liquid Death’s trademark applications for coffee-related goods, claiming that if Liquid Death were to expand into that category, it would create consumer confusion and dilute Death Wish’s brand.
Liquid Death responded publicly by saying it has “no real plans” to sell coffee, though its filings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office suggest it’s at least keeping the door open.
Understanding “likelihood of confusion”
Death Wish Coffee’s core claim is likelihood of confusion: the central test in trademark infringement cases. The company argues that consumers encountering Liquid Death Coffee could believe it’s affiliated with or produced by Death Wish Coffee, since both feature the word DEATH prominently in connection with beverage products.
Trademark rights are not property rights in language; they are source identifiers. A trademark exists to help consumers know where a product or service comes from.
That means you can register and protect even common words, if they have acquired a distinct meaning that points specifically to your brand. For instance, “Apple” can be a trademark for computers but not for fruit.
So while no one owns “death” in the abstract, Death Wish Coffee can still claim rights to that word when it is used for coffee and similar products, because consumers have come to associate the term DEATH in that context with their brand.
The key legal question here is not who used “death” first or who has the most striking skull logo. What matters is whether consumers are likely to be confused, meaning they might mistakenly believe that Liquid Death Coffee is connected to or endorsed by Death Wish Coffee.
If the court finds that such confusion is likely, Death Wish could have a valid infringement claim. If consumers clearly see the two as unrelated, both brands may continue to operate side by side in the beverage market. But both brands have already succeeded in doing what great branding does best: getting everyone’s attention.
