Maverick Apparel, a New York City children's and juniors clothing company, sent Logan Paul a cease-and-desist letter on January 4, 2018. The letter demanded that Paul stop using the Maverick name on his merchandise within seven days and claimed at least $4 million in damages. It arrived after the public backlash over Paul's video filmed in Japan's Aokigahara forest.
Last updated October 14, 2026.
What did the Maverick Apparel letter demand?
The Maverick Apparel letter demanded that Logan Paul stop using the Maverick trademark immediately, and it gave him seven days to comply before the company would sue, according to PopCulture's report on the letter. It also asked Paul to provide revenue information from his apparel sales and from advertising tied to the Japan video, according to FashionUnited.
FashionUnited reports that the letter went to Paul, his legal counsel and Maverick of Beverly Hills. Maverick Apparel's attorney Robert Garson told WWD that the damages reached $4 million, and that the company had been weighing a lawsuit for about six months.
What was Maverick Apparel's legal argument?
Maverick Apparel argued that the "Maverick by Logan Paul" mark and its own Maverick Apparel mark were confusingly similar, and that shoppers could believe the two companies were connected. The company also tied a reported drop in its sales, reputation and goodwill to the public reaction to Paul's conduct.
The letter was published as a news release the same day, which made the legal demand a public story. That choice is why the dispute reached entertainment and fashion outlets within hours.
What does the trademark record show?
A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office application for MAVERICK BY LOGAN PAUL, mirrored on Justia's trademark page, was filed on July 12, 2017 under serial number 87524862. The record lists a first use date of May 31, 2017 and covers sweatshirts, t-shirts, tank tops and hats in clothing class 25.
| Item | Detail |
|---|
| Mark | MAVERICK BY LOGAN PAUL, with a stylized parrot in the letter V |
| Serial number | 87524862 |
| Filing date | July 12, 2017 |
| First use in commerce | May 31, 2017 |
| Goods | Sweatshirts, t-shirts, tank tops and hats (class 25) |
| Published for opposition | March 6, 2018 |
The record shows that Paul's filing predates the letter by about six months and that it was published for opposition two months after the letter. It does not show how the dispute ended.
How did the dispute end?
The sources reviewed for this page do not report a lawsuit filing or a settlement. Public coverage stops at the demand letter, so the outcome is unconfirmed.
Readers who need a definitive answer should search court dockets and the USPTO record for the mark, because a private settlement would not appear in news coverage.
What can brand owners learn from the Maverick Apparel letter?
A brand owner can be pulled into a public crisis simply because another company uses a similar name. Maverick Apparel's sales complaint rested on the idea that shoppers linked its name to Paul's controversy, and TMZ's coverage showed Paul wearing Maverick clothing in public the next day, which kept the two names together in headlines.
Three practical points follow from the record:
- Search the trademark register for similar marks in your class before a merchandise line launches, and again when a celebrity partner joins.
- Put the factual claim first in any public demand letter. Coverage of the Maverick letter quoted its sharpest language more often than its trademark argument.
- Decide before sending whether the letter will also be released publicly, because a release turns a legal step into a reputation event for both sides.
Celebrity merchandise is now a standard revenue line for creators, as described in How Creators Actually Get Paid, which makes name checks more important each year. The wider market context is in Creator Economy vs. Influencer Marketing.
The Maverick Apparel case is a record of a small apparel company using a public letter to defend a name against a far larger audience. The lasting lesson for brand owners is to clear a name before launch and to treat any demand letter as a public document from the moment it is sent.
