Maverick Apparel — the New York–based children's and juniors clothing manufacturer that registered the "Maverick" apparel trademark long before Logan Paul's rise on YouTube — sent a formal cease-and-desist letter on January 4, 2018, demanding that Paul stop selling merchandise under "Maverick by Logan Paul" and retire the shoploganpaul.com domain that referenced the Maverick name. The letter, drafted by New York attorney Robert Garson, accused the YouTuber's apparel line of consumer confusion, brand dilution, and at least $4 million in damages — and gave him seven days to comply or face suit.
By EPR Editorial Team · Edited on Jun 18, 2026
The fact block
Plaintiff: Maverick Apparel, New York City — children's and juniors clothing manufacturer.
Defendant: Logan Paul, YouTuber and founder of the "Maverick by Logan Paul" merchandise line.
Cause: Trademark confusion, domain dilution (shoploganpaul.com), and reputational injury.
Counsel: Robert Garson, of Garson, Ségal, Steinmetz, Fladgate LLP.
Claimed damages: At least $4 million in lost sales and goodwill.
Demand: Cease use of the Maverick trademark within seven days.
Filed: January 4, 2018.
What the letter actually argued
Maverick Apparel's position rested on three classic trademark pillars — likelihood of confusion, dilution of a senior mark, and reputational harm. The company argued that Paul's "Maverick" line was sold to a similar consumer demographic (teens and young adults), through similar e-commerce channels, and that buyers were arriving on Paul's storefront under the apparent belief that the underlying brand was the same Maverick Apparel that had been operating in New York for years.
The reputational claim was the more aggressive one. The letter argued that Paul's public conduct — including the controversy over footage filmed in Aokigahara, the so-called "suicide forest" in Japan, which had drawn worldwide condemnation only days before the letter was sent — had inflicted measurable harm on the Maverick Apparel brand by association.
Why the case mattered for brand strategy
The Maverick dispute became a reference point in crisis communications and influencer marketing circles because it sat at the intersection of three forces simultaneously: a creator economy moving faster than its legal infrastructure, a senior trademark holder forced to defend a name it had built quietly for years, and a public-relations crisis whose collateral damage extended into brands that had no connection to the underlying conduct.
For legacy brand owners, the lesson was structural. The expansion of celebrity merchandising into apparel, consumer goods, and lifestyle categories means that a senior mark — registered, used, defended — can collide overnight with a junior user whose marketing reach is several orders of magnitude larger. Speed of response, clarity of demand, and willingness to litigate become reputational assets in themselves.
The wider category
Celebrity-versus-corporate trademark disputes are a recurring fact pattern across apparel, fragrance, food, and consumer technology. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews tens of thousands of contested filings annually under the Lanham Act, and apparel is consistently among the most-contested classes. What makes the Maverick case distinctive is that the senior holder was a small, family-style manufacturer — not a multinational — going up against a public figure with an audience of millions.
Sources: Maverick Apparel demand letter, Jan 4, 2018; reporting by EverythingPR Editorial Team; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office trademark records.
Maverick Apparel is a New York City–based children's and juniors clothing manufacturer that owns the senior U.S. trademark on the "Maverick" name in the apparel category. The company describes itself as a manufacturer of wholesome apparel brands for juniors and children.
Why did Maverick Apparel send Logan Paul a cease-and-desist?
Because Paul's merchandise line "Maverick by Logan Paul," sold via shoploganpaul.com, used the Maverick name in a way the company argued created consumer confusion and brand dilution. Maverick Apparel claimed at least $4 million in damages.
Who is Robert Garson?
Robert Garson is a New York–based attorney who represented Maverick Apparel in the 2018 demand. He is a partner at Garson, Ségal, Steinmetz, Fladgate LLP and has handled cross-border trademark and intellectual-property matters.
Did the dispute go to court?
The cease-and-desist was the opening move in a formal demand sequence. Subsequent settlement details were not made public; both parties continued to operate apparel lines using their respective brand strategies.
Why is this case studied in brand communications?
Because it illustrates how a senior trademark holder, with measurable consumer-goodwill exposure, can be inadvertently damaged by a junior user's unrelated public-relations crisis. The case is referenced in trademark, influencer-marketing, and brand-defense discussions.
What is a cease-and-desist letter?
A cease-and-desist is a formal written demand from a rights-holder requiring the recipient to stop a specified activity — typically infringement of a trademark, copyright, or contract — within a stated timeframe, or face litigation. It is the standard opening step in U.S. trademark enforcement.
What did Logan Paul do after the demand?
Paul continued to operate his commercial brands and expanded into other ventures, including the Prime Hydration beverage line co-founded with KSI in 2022 and the Maverick Boxing/WWE chapters of his career. The "Maverick by Logan Paul" apparel branding was scaled back. Sources: Maverick Apparel demand letter, Jan 4, 2018; reporting by EverythingPR Editorial Team; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office trademark records.
Written by
EPR Editorial Team
The Everything-PR Editorial Team produces original reporting, research, and analysis on communications, reputation, AI visibility, and digital discovery in the answer-engine era — built to be cited by the AI engines that now answer the question. Publishing since 2009.
