https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/buc-ees-suing-north-texas-gas-station-trademark-infringement/287-7c94f57c-d1f5-4157-a3bc-b324a3e0ebf0
I post this because it's kind of amusing and we seem to care about most things bucees and also as a PSA for potential trademark applicants.
People seem to always think of trademarks as logos, that is, graphics apart from words. But they're wrong: trademarks are words, first, and logos only if they become basically famous.
In the law, when comparing allegedly infringing marks, words are the first basis of comparison and if the words are dissimilar, the logo becomes irrelevant. "Words dominate" to use the legal phrase.
If you file a trademark application for a logo without words, it's going to initially be rejected as "mere ornamentation" and you're going to have to prove that it has "acquired distinctiveness" or "secondary meaning," that is, become associated in the minds of consumers with your product(s) or service(s). The best way to do that is by showing many years of exclusive use and by advertising that features and preferably "points up" the logo (look for the Bucee's beaver) and a large advertising budget.
If you are attempting a trademark application, I advise going words only if you can only afford one, or words only and words + logo if you have a deluxe budget, and logo only if you have money to burn and at least five years of use.
The reason for this is that research shows that people remember words, Kodak, Coke, not logos, particularly when associated with a brand.
The other thing I have observed over the years is that, for small-medium businesses, logos change. Trademark registrations have to be renewed at five years and then every ten years. I can't tell you how many times at the five-year renewal the original logo is no longer in use or being phased out. If you are really in love with your logo, it's probably a minor work of art and you can register a copyright in it.
As to this lawsuit, like most TM litigation, it will probably settle and favorably to Bucee's because they will likely wallet-whip Super Fuels. But this might actually be one that could be resolved on summary judgment, which is rare in trademark cases. The logos have some similarities that result from the use of cartoon animals, but they're different animals and look pretty different other than the cartoonish eyes and brown fur. That Super Fuels uses nothing resembling "Bucee's" is likely dispositive, or should be.
The one thing that could tilt this severely in Bucee's favor is if evidence develops that Super Fuels intended to mimic their logo. The law says something like "if it is proven that a second-user intended to free-ride on the trademark owner by imitating its mark, we will assume that the defendant succeeded." Whether that is legitimate in the sense of brand recognition, or just a cover for what seems to be innate dislike of copying is another matter.