LONDON — Coffee Studio, a London-based coffee chain, plans to file its legal defense this month against a trademark opposition from Old Kentucky Restaurants. Old Kentucky Restaurants, a subsidiary of FTSE 250 company Mitchells & Butlers, opposed Coffee Studio's application to register the slogan "Eat Drink Work."

Mitchells & Butlers stated that "Eat Drink Work" is too similar to its own "Eat Drink Meet" trademark. The Coffee Studio, cofounded in 2024 by Tahir Mehmet and Zaman Beg, operates two London branches in Greenwich and Battersea and employs 14 people. Mitchells & Butlers, which operates more than 1,800 venues and employs over 44,000 people, reported revenues of £1.5 billion in the first half of the year. Mitchells & Butlers declined to comment on the dispute.

The legal dispute has impacted Coffee Studio's operations, delaying merchandise plans, signage design and printing, menu reprints, and business expansion. Tahir Mehmet, owner of the Coffee Studio, said: "When you’re independent, you feel every decision in a way a big company never has to. They have legal teams and budgets built for this. We have a coffee business we’ve poured everything into. So yes, there are moments it feels like standing in front of something far bigger than you, wondering whether you’re mad even to try. But there’s another feeling underneath that one, and it’s stronger: we’re in the right. If three simple words can be contested, what does that mean for every independent trying to build something of their own? We don’t have a giant’s resources, but we have a community behind us and a clear conscience case we believe in. We’d rather stand up and be counted than step aside and be forgotten. This isn’t just our fight; it’s one for every small business that deserves a fair chance."

Oliver Oguz, managing director of Trade Mark Wizards, which represents Coffee Studio, stated that their client created the phrase ‘Eat Drink Work’ to describe what people do every day in modern cafes and flexible working spaces. "These are ordinary English words used in an ordinary way," Oguz said. "We believe this case raises important questions about where legitimate brand protection ends and where overly aggressive enforcement begins."