Lawyers Gear Up as Fight Between Bang and Monster Energy Drink Advances to Trial — A Few Claims Lighter
It's a lawsuit fraught with contention and counterclaims, and features reams of attorneys from across the country.
July 08, 2020 at 03:05 PM
4 minute read
A messy trademark fight between energy drinks giant Monster Energy Co. and its Florida-based rival Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. came to a head Monday, when U.S. District Judge Roy Altman in the Southern District of Florida canceled a disputed trademark and sent the parties to trial with a little less to argue about.
It's a lawsuit fraught with contention and counterclaims. It also features reams of attorneys from Florida, California, New York, Connecticut, Philadelphia and Washington State.
The dispute began in March 2019, when Monster launched a line of sports performance drinks called Reign Total Body Fuel. Vital Pharmaceuticals, doing business as VPX Sports, alleged that was a knock-off version of its Bang energy drinks, since both came in black cans with bright, multicolored lettering. VPX then launched its own line of drinks under the brand name "REIGN."
Monster argued Bang's packaging wasn't distinctive enough to be protected by trade dress — which refers to a product's visual appearance or packaging. But Altman found a juror could conclude otherwise, noting that even a Monster employee said the Bang packaging colors pop off the shelf.
"It is difficult to see how the Bang cans could 'pop off the shelf,' so to speak, if the packaging were only a 'mere refinement' of other drinks on the market," Altman wrote. "VPX says the Bang can's features are collectively unique; Monster says they are not. Either way, Monster's objection only highlights the importance of resolving this fact-intensive dispute at trial."
VPX has also pointed to evidence that Monster, through its internal presentations, referred to its Reign brand as a "BANG killer," and used slogans like "FUCK BANG" and "#FBang," according to Altman's ruling.
But it was bad news for VPX on the trademark front, as Altman found "every fact and (just about) every consideration weighs decisively against" the Weston company.
VPX registered its "REIGN" trademark after Monster had already launched its Reign products, according to the ruling. And though VPX argued it inherited the original owner's use of the trademark, first used in 2015, Altman found that agreement was actually invalid and canceled it.
VPX agreed to buy the trademark from Dash LLC, which used it for powdered pre-workout supplements, but Altman found their agreement didn't transfer any assets such as a formula, label, logo, customer list, equipment or consulting services.
"Indeed, as Dash's CEO would later put it, Dash had no discussions with VPX about selling anything other than 'just Reign,' the five-letter word," Altman wrote.
That means the purchase was an "assignment in gross," essentially exchanging no rights to VPX and deceiving consumers who relied on the Reign brand.
Finding that caffeine was the only remaining ingredient of the 20 Dash had used, Altman remarked that VPX "left behind any goodwill Dash had earned for its mark." Meanwhile, Dash directed its customers to a similar supplement under a new name, according to Monday's ruling.
"In fact, far from selling a substantially similar product, VPX entirely abandoned the product Dash had sold," Altman wrote. "Given these differences, consumers of VPX's Reign are left with no guarantee that they are purchasing goods of the same 'nature and quality previously associated with the mark.' "
Monster and its daughter company Reign Beverage Co. LLC have at least 12 attorneys, according to online case files, and its Miami lawyers are Sammy Epelbaum, Robert Harris and Brian Stack of Stack Fernandez & Harris. They did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Likewise, case files show VPX has at least 10 attorneys, including in-house counsel Matthew Davidson in Weston, Capri Trigo and Andrew Schindler of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani in Miami, and Miami Beach solo practitioner Francis Massabki.
|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 AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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