If you love juicy fast food, you’ve almost certainly tasted a smash burger in the last few years—a patty that is literally smashed onto a sizzling grill during cooking to create a crispy crust that seals all the juices inside. Today, this culinary trend is experiencing a real boom: “Smashburger” signs are appearing everywhere, and influencers on social media are competing in the art of properly pressing the meat.

But for one American corporation, the word Smashburger isn’t just a way to prepare food. It’s their intellectual property. Smashburger IP Holder LLC, which opened its first burger joint back in 2007, owns the rights to this name. But now, the brand is under siege: legal attacks on its exclusive rights are pouring in from all sides.

Battle for the Logo: “Junk Smash Burger” Enters the Ring

A new round of this gastronomic battle began when Bam Holding decided to register a trademark for their own logo for an establishment named “Junk Smash Burger.“

To avoid angering the giant’s patent lawyers, the newcomers resorted to a clever trick: in their logo, they wrote the word “burger” with a lowercase letter, and split the phrase “smash burger” into two separate words (unlike the combined spelling of the original).

However, this didn’t appease the owners of the original chain. In May 2026, the Smashburger corporation filed an official opposition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The corporation’s position: The appearance on the market of another brand with the phrase “smash burger” in its name will confuse the hungry minds of consumers and “dilute” the uniqueness of the original trademark. When a person sees these two words on a sign, they should think exclusively of the restaurants of the 2007 pioneers.

The Main Paradox: Can a Culinary Recipe Be Privatized?

This conflict exposes the main problem of patent law: when a brand name becomes too similar to a common description of a product, it loses protection.

From a legal point of view, you cannot take a commonly used word or culinary technique and forbid others from using it. You cannot register the trademark “Wood-fired Pizza” or “Cheese Fries” because these phrases simply describe the food itself, its quality, or the method of preparation. Competitors have every right to write these words on their menus.

Historians even argue that the very first hamburgers in America were prepared exactly by the pressing method (“flat-frying”). So how did one company manage to monopolize a technology that is almost a century old?

Death by Popularity: What is “Genericide”?

In 2007, the company found itself in the right place at the right time. Back then, the phrase “smash burger” wasn’t on the tip of the average shopper’s tongue. Upon hearing it, Americans recalled a specific restaurant. This helped the chain acquire so-called “acquired distinctiveness” (or secondary meaning) and stake its claim to the rights in the US.

But today, the brand has become a victim of its own success. When a trademark name becomes so popular that it turns into the common name for an entire class of goods, “genericide” (genericide) occurs—the death of the name through its generalization.

History knows many brands that lost their intellectual property rights because people started calling everything by their name:

• Aspirin (once—private medicine of the Bayer company, now—the common name of a chemical substance).

• Escalator (once—the unique name of moving stairs from the Otis company).

• Thermos and Dry Cleaning went down the same path.

That’s precisely why Smashburger lawyers are forced today to aggressively litigate with every small establishment like “Junk Smash Burger.” It’s not just greed—it’s survival. If they stop filing lawsuits and defending themselves, the court will rule that the word has become common, and the corporation will forever lose its billion-dollar exclusive rights.

Lessons for Business: How Not to Step on the “Burger” Rake

For restaurateurs, franchise restaurants, and food startups, this war teaches several important lessons:

• Avoid Trend-Names: Don’t build a company’s identity around a fashionable culinary word that everyone will pick up tomorrow. Popular culinary trends devalue a trademark faster than you can open a third branch.

• Be Unique From the Very Start: It is much easier to protect an invented, unusual word (for example, a combination of the founder’s name or an abstract term) than to fight for the right to own a word from the culinary dictionary.

• Combine the Descriptive With the Unique: If you really want to indicate the type of food in the name, be sure to add a strong brand name to it (for example, “[Your Unique Name]’s Burgers”).

For now, Smashburger is holding the defense in the US thanks to old registrations and an army of lawyers. However, European experience proves: it is becoming increasingly difficult to restrain the development of gastronomic language with the help of paragraphs of the law. Social media users and chefs around the world will continue to fry patties using the “smash” method, and no court will be able to forbid people from calling things by their names.

Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.