Impossible Foods has persuaded a federal judge to set aside part of a jury verdict won by fitness influencer Joel Runyon in a fight over the word “Impossible”. Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California threw out $1.75 million in punitive damages and ordered a new trial, Bloomberg Law reported on 30 July.
It is a sharp turn in a case that had looked like a clean win for the smaller party.
How the fight began
Runyon began using “Impossible” for a lifestyle and fitness blog in 2010, then built a business around it with federal trademarks covering endurance sport, apparel, nutrition and events. When Impossible Foods applied for a trademark covering recipes and cooking information, he sent a cease-and-desist letter in 2020. Impossible Foods sued in 2021, asking the court to declare its rights superior; the case was dismissed and then reinstated on appeal in 2023.
The verdict
In March 2026 an eight-person jury unanimously found that Impossible Foods had wilfully infringed two of Impossible X’s registered marks, and acted with malice, fraud and oppression. It also found infringement of unregistered marks for apparel and cookbooks, rejected Impossible Foods’ bid to cancel four of Runyon’s marks, and awarded $3.25 million. Impossible Foods said it disagreed with the verdict.
Why the judge stepped in
Freeman found a lack of evidence of oppression, fraud or malice to support punitive damages, and said Impossible X’s repeated references to Impossible Foods’ conduct in the litigation had likely inflamed the jury. She ordered a new trial to prevent what she called a miscarriage of justice.
The small brand won the argument with the jury, then lost part of it to the way it was made.
What to watch
- The scope and date of the new trial.
- Whether either side appeals once the damages are reset.
