Porsche Club of America v. Das Renn Treffen: Case Overview and Defense Takeaways

On October 2, 2025, Porsche Club of America, Inc. (PCA) sued Das Renn Treffen Inc., the organizer of a well-known South Florida Porsche festival, in the Northern District of Florida. PCA claimed that DRT’s use of ‘Treffen’ for Porsche events infringes its decades-old TREFFEN trademark.

The case is pending. The full docket is available through PACER (No. 1:25-cv-00306). What the public record does show is a revealing set of facts for any accused infringer: a German word registered for one category of services, a defendant that has used its name for about ten years and owns its own registration, and a Miami business sued in a different federal district.

This post walks through the parties, the marks, what is known about the case, and the defense lessons it offers for litigating in the Northern District.

The parties and the marks

Porsche Club of America was founded in 1955 and is a nonprofit club for Porsche owners in the U.S. and Canada, based in Columbia, Maryland. It runs a series of member gatherings branded “Treffen”, such as Treffen Santa Fe and Treffen San Antonio, along with tours to Porsche factories in Germany.

Das Renn Treffen Inc. (DRT) organizes an annual Porsche festival in South Miami, centered at Sunset Place, with related track days and parties. Its own trademark filing says it has used the name since January 15, 2015. “Das Renn Treffen” translates as “the race meeting.”

Mark	Owner	Registration / application	Services	Status
TREFFEN	PCA	Reg. No. 1,249,324 (filed 1982)	Travel and tour services (Class 39)	Registered and renewed; PCA has described it as incontestable
DRT	DRT	Reg. No. 5,999,670 (registered Mar. 3, 2020)	Car shows, exhibitions, and enthusiast events	Registered
DAS RENN TREFFEN	DRT	Ser. No. 98844987 (filed Nov. 8, 2024)	Car shows, exhibitions, and enthusiast events (Class 41)	Pending

The USPTO record for TREFFEN translates the word as “meeting, gathering or encounter.” That translation matters for both sides, as discussed below.

PCA has enforced the mark before. In 2016, it opposed a trademark application for the mark TEJASTREFFEN at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, citing the TREFFEN registration as incontestable and conclusive evidence of its rights.

The case at a glance

Case	Porsche Club of America, Inc. v. Das Renn Treffen Inc.
Case number	1:25-cv-00306
Court	U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida
Division	Gainesville (indicated by the “1:” case-number prefix)
Filed	October 2, 2025
Claims	Trademark infringement and dilution over the term “treffen” for Porsche-related events.
Counsel listed in press coverage	Sandberg Phoenix
Status	Pending

Orders and decisions so far

We found no published opinion, preliminary injunction, dismissal ruling, or judgment in this case as of November 2026. The free docket services and opinion databases we searched did not carry the docket, so routine scheduling orders and pending motions may exist that we could not see.

Date	Event	Source
Jun 2016	PCA opposes TEJASTREFFEN at the TTAB, asserting TREFFEN Reg. No. 1,249,324	TTAB filing
Mar 3, 2020	DRT’s own DRT mark registers (Reg. No. 5,999,670)	USPTO record
Nov 8, 2024	DRT applies to register DAS RENN TREFFEN, claiming use since 2015	USPTO record
Oct 2, 2025	PCA files suit in the Northern District of Florida	Law360
Oct 24, 2026	No public ruling located; case reported as pending	—

Takeaways for accused infringers in the Northern District

1. Read the registration’s actual scope

PCA’s TREFFEN registration covers travel and tour services in Class 39. DRT runs car shows and enthusiast events, which fall in Class 41. A § 1114 claim is measured against the goods and services in the registration. A defendant should press the difference and make the plaintiff prove that the services are related enough to confuse consumers. If they are not, the plaintiff may have to rely on common-law rights under § 1125(a), which carries a heavier burden of proof.

2. Understand what an incontestable registration does and does not block

PCA has called its registration incontestable. Under § 1065, an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive. But it can still be attacked as generic, abandoned, or obtained by fraud, and the defendant can still argue there is no likelihood of confusion. Here, the USPTO’s own translation of “treffen” (“meeting, gathering or encounter”) gives a defendant a starting point to argue the word is a common name for car-club meetups. Evidence that many unrelated Porsche and car events use “Treffen” also weakens the mark’s strength in the confusion analysis.

3. Use your own history, but carefully

DRT has used its name for about ten years and owns a federal registration for DRT. Owning a registration is not a defense to infringement of someone else’s earlier mark. But a long period of open, public use known to the plaintiff can support laches or acquiescence, and it can undercut any claim of irreparable harm in a preliminary-injunction fight. Gather dated proof of when the plaintiff knew or should have known about your use.

4. Check the forum

DRT’s events are in Miami-Dade County, in the Southern District, yet the case was filed in the Northern District’s Gainesville Division. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and § 1404(a), a defendant can examine whether venue is proper and whether the convenience of witnesses and evidence favors transfer. Raise venue objections early: they are waived if not included in the first Rule 12 response.

5. Plan for the Northern District’s local rules

The district’s rules shape strategy: 8,000-word limits on memoranda, 14-point type, no reply briefs without leave, a mandatory meaningful conference before most motions, and court approval for any extension, even an agreed one. A missing opposition can lead the court to grant a motion by default. See our companion post on defending trademark cases in the Northern District of Florida for a full rule-by-rule guide.

Are you a defendant in a trademark or unfair competition lawsuit in the Northern District of Florida? Contact our team of Florida Trademark Lawyers at [email protected] or call us at 305-374-8303 on how we can help.