.png)
.png)
In the fast-paced world of intellectual property (IP) disputes, a recent legal battle has captured the attention of many in the beverage industry. The Southern District of New York (SDNY) witnessed a clash between beverage giants PepsiCo, the maker of Mountain Dew, and MTN DEW RISE. The outcome of this legal duel has far-reaching implications for trademark law, branding strategies, and the protection of intellectual property. In this blog, we delve into the detaIn today’s competitive marketplace, intellectual property (IP) disputes often determine which brands thrive and which falter. One recent high-profile clash involved the use of the word “RISE” in the beverage industry. Although the original dispute was decided in the United States, similar conflicts regularly unfold in the Philippines before the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL).
This article breaks down the key issues raised in the “RISE” dispute, re-frames them in the Philippine context, and draws lessons for Filipino businesses aiming to safeguard their brands.
Imagine this scenario: A major global beverage company has long established its brand, complete with iconic colors, flavors, and a loyal consumer base. Suddenly, a smaller competitor launches a new product using a highly similar brand element — in this case, the word “RISE”.
In the Philippines, such a conflict would be handled under IPOPHL’s Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), which hears opposition and cancellation cases involving trademarks.
PepsiCo argued that the use of “RISE” by another beverage company was confusingly similar to its long-standing Mountain Dew brand. Under Philippine law, the test is the “likelihood of confusion” — whether an average Filipino consumer would likely mistake one product for another.
Pepsi emphasized:
Cases like this have Philippine parallels. For example, in Shang Properties v. St. Francis Development Corp. (2012), the Supreme Court stressed that strong, well-known marks deserve broader protection against confusingly similar uses.
The competing company countered that the term “RISE” was generic and descriptive — often used in the beverage industry to convey “energy” or “boost.” Under IPOPHL rules, descriptive marks are generally not registrable unless they have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning (long use that consumers associate only with one source).
They also argued that consumers would not be confused because:
This defense reflects local Philippine disputes. For example, in Societe Des Produits Nestlé v. Dy (2007), the Supreme Court emphasized that ordinary descriptive words like “NESTLE” had gained distinctive status through long use, proving that descriptive terms can sometimes become protectable trademarks.
If this case had been filed in the Philippines, IPOPHL would apply the Dominancy Test and the Holistic Test:
IPO rulings often consider:
In the U.S. case, PepsiCo prevailed. In the Philippines, a similar ruling could be expected if IPOPHL found that:
The likely outcome? IPOPHL’s BLA would grant the opposition and deny registration of the competing “RISE” mark, protecting Pepsi’s established brand. If contested, the losing party could appeal to the Director General, the Court of Appeals, and even the Supreme Court.
While this was primarily a trademark case, copyright law can also play a role. For example, if PepsiCo’s graphic designs, logos, or advertising artwork were copied directly, it could raise copyright infringement issues under the Philippine Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293).
A well-known example is when local businesses have copied international logos or advertising campaigns — IPOPHL and Philippine courts have ruled that even if the trademark dispute is arguable, the unauthorized use of creative artworks may still constitute copyright infringement.
The “RISE” case highlights a core truth: in the Philippines, as elsewhere, branding battles can define a company’s future. IPOPHL has consistently shown that even descriptive terms, once distinctive, deserve protection.
For local businesses, the message is clear — invest in strong, original branding and secure your rights through registration. If you find yourself in a dispute, professional guidance is key. Firms like Brealant, Federis, and Hechanova specialize in helping businesses navigate IPOPHL’s complex procedures.
ils of the case, the arguments presented, and the pivotal decision that saw Pepsi emerge victorious in the RISE v MTN DEW RISE dispute.
Background
PepsiCo’s Argument
PepsiCo argued that the use of “RISE” in MTN DEW RISE was not only similar to their existing Mountain Dew brand but also likely to confuse consumers. The iconic nature of the Mountain Dew brand, with its distinct green color and citrus flavor, has been a staple in the soft drink industry for decades. PepsiCo contended that Rise Brewing Co.’s choice of the term “RISE” in their product’s name was a deliberate attempt to ride on the coattails of Mountain Dew’s success.
The beverage giant further pointed out that the visual elements of the MTN DEW RISE packaging, including color schemes and font styles, closely resembled those of Mountain Dew. PepsiCo emphasized the potential for consumers to mistakenly associate MTN DEW RISE with their established brand, leading to a dilution of their trademark and potential damage to their reputation.
Rise Brewing Co.’s Defense
Rise Brewing Co. countered PepsiCo’s claims by arguing that the term “RISE” was commonly used in the beverage industry and did not exclusively belong to Mountain Dew. They asserted that the term was descriptive, implying an elevation or boost, and was thus fair game for any energy drink seeking to convey a similar message. Rise Brewing Co. also highlighted the differences in flavor profiles and ingredients between MTN DEW RISE and Mountain Dew, asserting that consumers would be aware.
The brewing company further contended that the market for energy drinks was diverse and dynamic, with numerous products featuring the term “RISE” without confusion. They presented market research indicating that consumers were discerning enough to differentiate between brands and make informed choices based on taste, ingredients, and other factors.
Legal Analysis
The legal battle hinged on established trademark principles, primarily the likelihood of confusion. The court considered factors such as the similarity of the marks, the strength of the plaintiff’s mark, the proximity of the products, the likelihood that the plaintiff would bridge the gap, evidence of actual confusion, the defendant’s good faith, and the quality of the defendant’s product.
The court acknowledged the distinctiveness and strength of the Mountain Dew brand, emphasizing its widespread recognition and consumer loyalty. It also recognized the similarities in the packaging and visual elements between the two products, pointing to the potential for consumer confusion.
However, Rise Brewing Co.’s arguments about the descriptive nature of the term “RISE” and the differences in the products’ flavor profiles played a role in the court’s analysis. The court considered the diverse market for energy drinks and the need for a balanced approach that protected the interests of both parties.
The Decision
After careful consideration of the arguments presented, the SDNY ruled in favor of PepsiCo. The court concluded that the similarities in the marks, combined with the distinctive nature of the Mountain Dew brand, created a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The court emphasized that Rise Brewing Co.’s use of “RISE” in the context of energy drinks, coupled with visual similarities in packaging, was not coincidental but rather a calculated attempt to benefit from the reputation of the Mountain Dew brand.
The decision had significant implications not only for the parties involved but also for the broader landscape of trademark law, setting a precedent for cases involving descriptive terms in competitive markets.
Implications for the Industry
The RISE v MTN DEW RISE case serves as a reminder of the importance of careful branding strategies in the beverage industry and beyond. Companies must be vigilant in selecting names and designing packaging to avoid potential conflicts with established trademarks. The ruling reinforces the notion that even descriptive terms can be protected under trademark law when they acquire secondary meaning through longstanding use and consumer recognition.
For businesses in the beverage sector, this case underscores the need for comprehensive trademark searches and legal, due diligence before launching new products. It also highlights the importance of differentiating products through unique branding elements, ensuring that consumers can easily distinguish between competing offerings in a crowded market.
As intellectual property battles continue to shape the competitive landscape, legal expertise is crucial for safeguarding your brand’s identity. Ensure your trademarks are secure and your business is protected with the dedicated team at Brealant, your trusted partner in intellectual property law. Contact us today to fortify your brand for success in the dynamic world of commerce.