'BANG' Energy Drink Manufacturer Claims Monster 'Shamelessly' Copied Its Product
Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Monster Energy Co. are flinging lawsuits at one another, but which brand has the legal stamina to prevail?
April 02, 2019 at 11:19 AM
4 minute read
A Florida energy supplement manufacturer has launched a federal lawsuit against Delaware-based competitor Monster Energy Co. and daughter company Reign Beverage LLC, alleging they created a knock-off version of its BANG energy drinks.
Weston-based Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc., doing business as VPX Sports, alleges unfair competition and trademark and trade dress infringement — which refers to a product's visual appearance or packaging.
“Competition law places reasonable limits on the proverbial expression 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,' ” said the complaint, which claims Monster products “ shamelessly” mimicked VPX's packaging with Reign Total Body Fuel, a line of sports performance drinks launched in March.
According to the complaint in the Southern District of Florida, VPX owns the Reign trademark and some customers have been confused by the similarity. It also claims Monster pulled the phrase “body fuel” from its trademarked catchphrase, “potent brain body fuel.”
The lawsuit pits bold, colorful BANG energy drinks against equally bold and colorful cans of Reign. It seeks damages and an injunction to stop Monster from using the Reign trademark, ordering it to destroy its Reign products and change its future packaging.
But Monster says the lawsuit comes with a clear ulterior motive, and spokesperson Tamara Taylor claims the images in the complaint appear doctored to seem similar in color. Reign's “peach fizz” flavored drink, for example, appears a fluorescent yellow color in the lawsuit, while Taylor claims a Google search shows the can is pale orange.
Counsel to VPX, Marc J. Kesten, denied that claim.
Monster released a statement Friday calling the case “unmeritorious” and claimed it was an attempt to shift attention from a false-advertising suit it filed against VPX and its owner in September 2018.
“VPX's lawsuit is nothing more than a frivolous and bad-faith attempt to slow the national release of 'Reign Total Body Fuel,' ” the statement said.
Monster targeted BANG in the Central District of California for marketing the drink as “not your stereotypical high-sugar, life-sucking soda masquerading as an energy drink,” and claiming that one ingredient, super creatine, is 20 times more effective at reaching the brain than regular creatine — even capable of reversing intellectual disabilities and curing diseases.
Related story: 'BANG' Energy Drink Manufacturer Hit With Monster Lawsuit Over Its Health Claims
Monster's suit alleged the ingredient was far from super, and “nothing more than water-soluble creatine — a popular supplement,” which doesn't result in any of the purported health benefits.
U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal denied VPX's request for more time to answer the complaint Friday, remarking that the defendants had “walked into a mess of their own making.”
VPX has also been hit with class action lawsuits over its super creatine claims, and in October 2018, the U.S. Patent Office canceled VPX's patent claim to super creatine. It denies the allegations and has called the lawsuits frivolous.
According to Kesten, Monster's understanding of trademark law based on its press release was “completely wrong.” Kesten said the complaint stands on its own merits and bears no relation to the prior suit — in which he highlighted Monster's original attorney Marc P. Miles of Shook, Hardy & Bacon was disqualified over allegations he'd previously represented VPX.
Read the full complaint:
|Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFlorida Supreme Court Paves Way for Attorney Fees Over $100k in Land Dispute
Miami’s Arbitration Week Aims To Cement City’s Status as Dispute Destination
3 minute readHit Song Ignites Multimillion-Dollar Legal Battle in South Florida
Ex-Big Law Attorney Disbarred for Defrauding $1 Million of Client Money
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Growing Financial Information Services Firm Names Former S&P Global Attorney CLO
- 2Midsize Texas Firm Kane Russell Takes Another Step Toward Second-Generation Leadership With New CFO
- 3Governor's Chief Legal Counsel Is Newest Magistrate in Chancery
- 4JPMorgan, Tesla Call Off $162M Stock Warrant Case
- 5FDA Defends Rejection of Vape-Flavor Applications Before Sympathetic Supreme Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250