Vapor
A cold-brew coffee company has labelled PepsiCo a “repeat trademark offender” and accused it of “saturating” the market with its infringing ‘Mtn Dew Rise’ brand.
In a lawsuit filed this week at the US
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Rise Brewing
claimed Pepsi was using its commercial dominance to confuse customers.
PepsiCo
launched the Mtn Dew Rise caffeinated energy drink earlier this year.
Rise Brewing claims the brand is a “classic case of reverse confusion,”
where a larger brand adopts the mark of a smaller competitor to confuse
customers into thinking the two are connected.
“The market
flooding by the larger junior user (PepsiCo) overwhelms that of the
senior user (Rise Brewing) and creates a likelihood of confusion as
consumers come to assume that the senior user’s products (Rise Brewing’s
RISE-branded products) are really those of the junior user (PepsiCo),
or that the former has become somehow affiliated with or sponsored by
the latter,” Rise Brewing claimed in court.
PepsiCo has form with
this type of branding strategy, alleged Rise Brewing, citing the
company’s supposed “long history of being a repeat trademark offender”.
Specifically, the lawsuit recounted PepsiCo’s previous legal troubles
with the owners of drinks brands such as VitaminWater and Simply Orange
(a Coca-Cola brand).
“PepsiCo’s actions in unlawfully adopting
Rise Brewing’s mark are the latest chapter of its storied history of
taking instead of innovating, a story that is well documented in prior
litigations where PepsiCo has repeatedly been accused of and found
liable for infringing on others’ trademark rights,” said the complaint.
Rise
Brewing claims PepsiCo adopted the strategy to “destroy a leading
competitor to Starbucks’ Ready-To-Drink (RTD) coffee drinks, which are
distributed by PepsiCo through the North American Coffee Partnership”.
PepsiCo
would have been aware of Rise Brewing’s trademarks and success because
the parties had met at trade shows, the lawsuit added. Rise Brewing said
its rival was “dismissive” of its concerns when first informed of its
alleged trademark infringement.
Source:Wipr
Author:Rory O'Neill
Editor:IPRdaily-Vapor