Mattel’s Surprising Dispute With a Podcaster Named Ken

Ken Biberaj got a surprising call from his lawyer earlier this year, six months after he filed a trademark application for the name of his policy-focused interview podcast, Coffee With Ken. The US Patent and Trademark Office had given its preliminary approval, but now there was a problem: A challenge had been filed, the lawyer said. The objecting party turned out to be Mattel, the maker of Barbie. “Wait, because of the Ken doll?” Biberaj recalls saying.

Yes, because of the Ken doll. Though Biberaj’s first name is, in fact, Ken, the toy company claims in its filing that a “Coffee With Ken” trademark would “dilute the distinctive qualities” of Barbie’s boyfriend’s brand. Biberaj disagrees. He says his show has nothing to do with the Barbieverse, and that seems hard to dispute: The commercial real-estate agent, who lives in Northern Virginia, features guests like Maryland governor Wes Moore and historian Jon Meacham talking about policy issues. Biberaj points out that when he hosts live podcast events, “no one’s ever shown up and been like, ‘Wait, you’re not the doll?’ ”

Faced with Mattel’s opposition, Biberaj considered abandoning his trademark quest. But after mulling it over with his legal team, he decided to fight back. “It feels like they’re trying to prevent us from growing and building our brand around a name that is my name,” he says. “And I’m a human.”

In its filing, Mattel argues that the toy company used to sell a Barista Ken doll, and it believes consumers could be confused by the caffeinated name of Biberaj’s show. But in their official response, Bib­eraj’s attorneys point out that “the barista doll never hosted a podcast, nor was it associated with interview-based programming.” (Mattel didn’t respond to requests for comment.)

With the dispute between Mattel and Biberaj expected to drag on, the situation is starting to recall the sorts of wonky discussions that Coffee With Ken focuses on. So for a bit more clarity, we called up Ken Wilton, whose expertise is relevant not just because of his first name but also because he happens to be an intellectual-property attorney. Ken the lawyer says that to make its brand-dilution argument, Mattel has to prove that the general public specifically associates the name Ken with the toy. The attorney seemed a bit skeptical: “He’s an important character in the Barbie universe, but enough to be famous? I don’t know. I’ve never been mistaken for a Ken doll.”

This article appears in the October 2025 issue of Washingtonian.

Kate Corliss

Junior Staff Writer