August 14, 2026
Who Owns “Trolley”? Trolley Square v. Trolley Corners
In Salt Lake City, there is a new fight brewing over a bit of old history. In 1908, the city built several car barns on a block near downtown to house the trolley cars for their new and innovative electric trolley system. In the early 1970s, after falling into disrepair, the location was redeveloped into a partially enclosed shopping center aptly named “Trolley Square.” A few years later, the equally apt “Trolley Corners” was developed on a corner just across the street from Trolley Square. For over four decades, these locations have co-existed in peace (to an outsider’s perspective). But now, the peace has broken.
In a July 23, 2026, federal complaint, Trolley Square Ventures, LLC alleges that Trolley Corners Center, LLC’s name and marketing falsely suggest an affiliation. The lawsuit asserts six federal and state claims, seeking an injunction and at least $25 million in damages.
The complaint focuses heavily on online identity and customer confusion between Trolley Corner’s tenants and Trolley Square. For example, it cites TikTok references to “EOS Fitness Trolley Square” when EOS is a Trolley Corner tenant. And it points to a 2014 three-star Yelp review of restaurant Tucci’s which states that it “looks sort of like it should be in trolley square.” Trolley Square alleges that confusion involving those neighboring tenants harms its goodwill, particularly because of their negative reviews.
The history is contested. Trolley Corners’ attorney has emphasized decades of coexistence and denied misleading customers. The complaint, however, alleges that earlier use of “Trolley Corners” for a movie theater was abandoned before the current company adopted its name in 2006. It identifies building signage around 2010 and an online leasing listing in 2024 using Trolley Square marks.
Under the Lanham act, a mark can be “abandoned” based on nonuse which requires discontinued use and an intent not to resume it. See 15 U.S.C. § 1127. If a mark has not been used for three years, the relevant statute deems that nonuse creates a presumption that the mark has been abandoned. This makes the history and continuity of Trolley Corners’ use important factual questions. For businesses, this is a reminder to maintain and document trademark use, especially during times of transition.
The complaint asserts common-law trademark rights starting as early as 1972 and identifies two applications as pending: TROLLEY SQUARE and THERE’S ONLY ONE TROLLEY SQUARE. Registration is not a prerequisite to obtaining protection of trademarks under the Lanham Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
But to succeed on its infringement claims, Trolley Square must show likely confusion. This is a fact intensive inquiry. Courts in the 10th Circuit consider the marks’ similarity, the alleged infringer’s intent, evidence of actual confusion, the relationship between the parties’ offerings and marketing, consumers’ likely care, and the strength of the plaintiff’s mark. These factors are weighed together to assess the marks as a whole as customers encounter them. Proximity and sharing “Trolley” are not sufficient on their own to conclude that Trolley Corners has infringed on Trolley Square’s marks.
For businesses, the practical lesson is to treat online listings, tenant advertising and signage as part of brand management. Businesses should also preserve dated evidence of use, investigate confusion in context and document permissions or coexistence arrangements. Clear listings and targeted corrections may help protect both brand identity and business relationships. Consulting with Parsons’ intellectual property attorneys about prudent steps to protect and preserve trademark rights will help your business avoid common pitfalls that can lead to costly litigation.
