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:
'BANG' Energy Drink Manufacturer Hit With Monster Lawsuit Over Its Health Claims
Expensive F*U: After 7 Years, FIU and FNU Reach $1.1M Settlement in Fight Over Name
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 AllHolland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
3 minute readRFK Jr. Will Keep Affiliations With Morgan & Morgan, Other Law Firms If Confirmed to DHHS
3 minute readPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readLocal Boutique Expands Significantly, Hiring Litigator Who Won $63M Verdict Against City of Miami Commissioner
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
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