Toys “Я” Us sues Vape R Us for trademark dilution, spotlighting legal risks for cannabis brands that echo legacy retail identities.
A legal dust-up is unfolding in federal court that pits a nostalgic retail titan against a small vape shop—and the implications could ripple far beyond the parties involved. Tru Kids Inc. (a subsidiary of WHP Global), the corporate parent of the iconic Toys “Я” Us brand, is suing a New Haven-based storefront called Vape R Us, alleging that the shop’s name and branding unlawfully dilute and tarnish the famous “Я Us” mark.
The lawsuit, filed in May 2025 in the Connecticut District Court, seeks a default judgment and permanent injunction after the defendants failed to answer or otherwise appear. Tru Kids argues the unauthorized mimicry crosses the line from homage to infringement, and more importantly, threatens the reputation the company has spent decades cultivating.
Beyond the courtroom, the case reveals a growing tension between legacy intellectual property and emerging players in the cannabis and vaping industries. As cannabis brands stake their claims in a competitive market largely cut off from federal trademark protections, trademark dilution has become a powerful tool for established companies looking to protect their turf. The keyword at the center of this clash—trademark dilution—offers a window into how brand identity, consumer perception, and legal frameworks continue to evolve alongside the industry.
A Tale of Two Brands
Tru Kids Inc. inherited the Toys “R” Us brand and intellectual property after the chain’s 2017 bankruptcy restructuring. Though its big-box heyday may be in the rearview, the brand still commands considerable recognition thanks to its deep roots in American culture. The backward “R” logo, introduced in 1970, became shorthand for childhood itself—instantly recognizable to generations raised on action figures, board games, and weekend toy runs.
Vape R Us, by contrast, operates in a completely different space—both literally and legally. Located in New Haven, Connecticut, the shop sells a mix of e-cigarettes, vape juice, and cannabis paraphernalia. Its branding leans hard into the Toys “Я” Us aesthetic, mimicking the colorful, playful typography and the distinctive “Я Us” construction.
That visual and semantic echo is no coincidence, and Tru Kids wasted little time pointing it out.
What Trademark Dilution Really Means
At the heart of Tru Kids’ claim lies Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act—which was initially established by the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 and amended by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act—and protects famous marks from uses that erode their distinctiveness or tarnish their reputation.
Unlike traditional trademark infringement, which depends on the likelihood of consumer confusion, trademark dilution applies even when no one is actually confused. The mere association of a famous mark with a different kind of product—especially one with a controversial or stigmatized reputation—can be enough to trigger a claim.
In this case, Tru Kids alleges two key forms of dilution: blurring and tarnishment.
Blurring happens when a famous mark’s uniqueness is watered down by unauthorized commercial use. Tarnishment involves reputational harm—typically when a mark is tied to something offensive, illicit, or otherwise outside its traditional market space. Tru Kids asserts both apply here, arguing that the association of their child-focused brand with nicotine and cannabis products is inherently damaging.
Cannabis Industry in the Crosshairs
Federal prohibition makes it difficult—if not impossible—for cannabis brands to register trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for anything directly related to marijuana.
That has led some companies to flirt with the edges of legacy branding in hopes of capturing attention and standing out in a saturated field.
Those moves, however, come with real risk.
The USPTO routinely refuses trademarks tied to drug paraphernalia or federally illegal goods, leaving cannabis companies with limited paths to protect their names and logos. As a workaround, some register ancillary products like clothing or accessories, hoping to build brand equity through adjacent channels.
This legal limbo, coupled with high consumer demand and limited IP enforcement options, creates a landscape where mimicry becomes more tempting—and where lawsuits like this one become inevitable.
The Legal Case So Far
The procedural facts of the case are straightforward. Tru Kids filed its complaint in May of 2025. Vape R Us was served properly but never responded. That non-response triggered a motion for default judgment—meaning the court may rule in Tru Kids’ favor simply because the defendant failed to contest the allegations.
The lawsuit spells out multiple legal theories, from trademark dilution by tarnishment and blurring, to more conventional claims like infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and unfair competition under Lanham Act § 43(a). The remedies sought include a permanent injunction barring Vape R Us from using “Я Us” in any form, as well as potential monetary damages and disgorgement of profits.
Precedent and Strategy
Tru Kids isn’t the first to protect its marks against cannabis-themed brand echoes. In 2023, the company won a similar case in New York against ZaZa R Us, a cannabis dispensary that also leaned on the familiar “R Us” phrasing. In that case, the court acknowledged both dilution and tarnishment, lending weight to the brand’s new legal effort.
Other cases—such as the 1996 decision in Toys “R” Us v. Akkaoui (involving Adults “R” Us), or the 2019 infringement suit Starbuds Temp Services v. Greenlane—illustrate a judicial trend: courts are increasingly willing to enforce IP rights even when the underlying market involves cannabis, provided the plaintiff’s mark is federally protected and demonstrably famous.
Tru Kids’ legal strategy is clear. By focusing on the fame of its mark and underscoring the reputational damage done by association with cannabis-adjacent goods, it is setting itself up for a high-probability win through default. The move also sends a message to would-be imitators that established brands are watching—and willing to fight back.
A Warning Shot to Cannabis Entrepreneurs
For startups and legacy operators alike, the takeaway is simple: tread carefully when referencing or riffing on famous brands. What might seem like a clever marketing hook could trigger a federal lawsuit, especially when the brand being borrowed has deep public goodwill and a track record of litigation.
The case also highlights the uphill battle cannabis companies face in carving out unique IP identities. Without federal protection, their options for securing brand rights remain murky. Until national legalization resolves the USPTO impasse, trademark dilution claims may become an increasingly popular route for brand defense—especially when cannabis and legacy industries collide.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just a niche skirmish over logos. It’s a barometer for how courts will continue to interpret IP law in the rapidly expanding cannabis economy. With federal legalization looming as a potential game-changer, the trademark space remains volatile.
Legal scholars and trade attorneys alike continue to call for reform. Whether through clearer USPTO guidance on cannabis-related marks or more nuanced standards for determining dilution and tarnishment, the goal is to balance innovation with protection. Empirical studies on how consumers actually interpret “Я Us” derivatives could also reshape how courts evaluate these claims in the future.
As the Vapor Clears
From many perspectives, Tru Kids Inc. v. Vape R Us seems like a case of David and Goliath—a valiant effort to carve out unique space in the cannabis industry, thwarted by venture capitalists who own the husk of a once cherished childhood brand.
Incidentally, those with whom the similarity to the beloved toy store’s branding would resonate are all of legal smoking—or vaping—age by now. Suffice it to say, all the Toys “Я” Us kids who once didn’t want to grow up have long since learned that resistance to time is futile—some of them, perhaps, taking the edge off that realization with a vape.
Nevertheless, from a trademark perspective, the battle was over before it began.
For the cannabis industry, the case marks another reminder that every branding choice, every marketing angle—it’s all subject to legal scrutiny. In an environment where trademark dilution claims pack more punch than ever, names matter; and mimicry comes with an inherent risk.
***
GreenPharms is more than just a dispensary. We are a family-owned and operated company that cultivates, processes, and sells high-quality cannabis products in Arizona. Whether you are looking for medical or recreational marijuana, we have something for everyone. From flower, edibles, concentrates, and topicals, to accessories, apparel, and education, we offer a wide range of marijuana strains, products and services to suit your needs and preferences. Our friendly and knowledgeable staff are always ready to assist you and answer any questions you may have. Visit our dispensaries in Mesa and Flagstaff, or shop online and get your order delivered to your door. At GreenPharms, we are cultivating a different kind of care.
Follow us on social media
