Twisted Sister Won’t Take Trademark Infringement

When Sandra Russell and Nancy Hansen opened Twisted Sisters Coffee Shop in Mission, Kansas, they chose the name because they are sisters and their brother had been calling them “twisted” since the 1960s. The name felt personal, authentic, and fitting. What they did not anticipate was a cease and desist letter from an attorney representing John French, the founding member of the heavy metal band Twisted Sister, alleging that their coffee shop’s name infringed French’s trademark. The case illustrates how the trademark infringement analysis works and why small businesses should conduct trademark clearance searches before launching.

The Trademark Infringement Claim

French’s attorneys alleged that the coffee shop’s use of “Twisted Sisters” was confusingly similar to the band’s registered trademark “Twisted Sister” under the trademark infringement test. At first glance, the claim may seem overreaching—what does a coffee shop in Mission, Kansas have to do with a 1980s heavy metal band? But the trademark infringement analysis is more nuanced than a casual comparison might suggest, and the sisters faced a genuinely difficult legal situation.

The Eight-Factor Likelihood of Confusion Test

Federal courts apply a multi-factor test to determine whether two marks create a likelihood of confusion among consumers. In the Eighth Circuit—which encompasses Kansas—the relevant factors include:

• The strength of the plaintiff’s mark
• The similarity between the marks in appearance, sound, and meaning
• The degree of competition between the goods or services
• Evidence of actual confusion
• The alleged infringer’s intent
• The care normally exercised by purchasers of the goods or services
• The channels of trade and advertising
• The degree of consumer sophistication

Applying these factors to the Twisted Sisters Coffee Shop case:

Strength of the Mark

“Twisted Sister” is a famous mark with decades of recognition in the music industry. Famous marks receive the broadest scope of trademark protection and are enforceable across a wider range of goods and services than ordinary marks. The Lanham Act’s dilution provisions, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), further protect famous marks against uses that blur or tarnish their distinctive quality—even in entirely different markets. A coffee shop named “Twisted Sisters” might not need to compete with a band to potentially dilute its famous mark.

Similarity of the Marks

“Twisted Sisters” and “Twisted Sister” differ only in the addition of an “s.” That difference is unlikely to create meaningful consumer distinction. The marks sound nearly identical when spoken. Their visual appearance is almost indistinguishable. Courts look for the “dominant” element of each mark—here, both marks are dominated by the unusual word “Twisted” combined with “Sister,” making them highly similar under this factor.

Competition and Channels of Trade

A coffee shop and a rock band are obviously not direct competitors. However, trademark protection extends to licensing and merchandising. A band as famous as Twisted Sister licenses its mark for a wide variety of merchandise and branded products. A coffee shop named Twisted Sisters might reasonably be perceived as a licensed Twisted Sister product—themed merchandise, a spin-off brand, or an authorized retail location. This licensing channel creates potential consumer confusion even without direct market competition.

The Sisters’ Difficult Position

The sisters had a sympathetic origin story for their name—genuine personal history, no knowledge of the band’s trademark, and no intent to trade on the band’s goodwill. However, trademark infringement does not require intent. An innocent infringer is still an infringer. The only practical alternatives were to litigate the claim—a costly and uncertain path against a well-funded opponent with a famous mark—or to change the name of the business.

This is the harsh reality of trademark law: a small business can invest significantly in building a brand around a name, only to discover that someone else has prior trademark rights that require a name change. The time and money invested in signage, marketing materials, social media accounts, and customer recognition are lost. Starting over with a new name means rebuilding that investment from scratch.

Why Trademark Clearance Before Launch Is Essential

The Twisted Sisters case is a cautionary tale about the cost of launching without trademark clearance. A comprehensive clearance search—examining the USPTO trademark database, state registrations, and common law uses—would have identified the Twisted Sister registration before the coffee shop opened. With that knowledge, the sisters could have chosen a different name from the start, avoiding the entire dispute and the cost of rebranding.

Trademark clearance is not expensive relative to the cost of a rebrand, a cease and desist dispute, or trademark litigation. For any business building a brand—particularly one that plans to invest in marketing, signage, and online presence—a clearance search conducted before launch is essential risk management.

What to Do If You Receive a Trademark Cease and Desist

If you receive a trademark cease and desist letter, consult a trademark attorney immediately. Do not respond without legal advice. An experienced trademark attorney will assess the strength of the opposing mark, analyze the likelihood of confusion under the applicable multi-factor test, evaluate whether a fair use or other defense is available, and advise you on the realistic options—which may include negotiating a coexistence agreement, challenging the scope of the claim, or, if the claim has merit, planning an orderly rebrand that minimizes disruption to your business.

Revision Legal’s trademark attorneys handle both trademark clearance searches for new businesses and trademark dispute matters for businesses that receive enforcement demands. Contact us today for a consultation.