'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
© 2025 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 AllForum Clause Axes $844M Case Against Reinsurer Over Deadly Plane Crash, Judge Rules
Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
3 minute readMiami-Dade Litigation Over $1.7 Million Brazilian Sugar Deal Faces Turning Point
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Eight Years On, A&O Shearman’s Fuse Legal Tech Incubator is Still Evolving
- 2Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly
- 3First Amendment Litigator Returns to Gibson Dunn
- 4In Record Year for Baker Botts, Revenue Up 11.8%, PEP Up 17.6%
- 5Loopholes, DNA Collection and Tech: Does Your Consent as a User of a Genealogy Website Override Another Person’s Fourth Amendment Right?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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