shutterstock_2125385033_silver_wings
10 October 2023Global Trade SecretsMarisa Woutersen

Monster secures more than $300m in energy drinks row

Beverage giant filed a successful lawsuit alleging that its rival had perpetuated false and unsupported claims | Pharma company now faces permanent injunction as well as substantial damages.

Monster Energy has enhanced its multi-million dollar win against Vital Pharmaceuticals, bringing its total damages verdict to a sum in excess of $300 million.

The US District Court for the Central District of California, presided over by Judge Jesus Bernal, handed down the latest decision in this long-running legal battle on Friday, October 6.

Case background

The case dates back to September 2018, when Monster filed a lawsuit against Vital Pharmaceuticals, alleging that it had perpetuated false and unsupported claims that its Bang energy drinks contain ingredients that it does not have, and provides benefits that it does not generate.

Vital Pharmaceuticals then filed a trademark lawsuit against Monster in Florida, accusing it of copying the packaging of its ‘Reign’ energy drinks in a trade dress and trademark infringement dispute—which was later dismissed in August 2023.

In September 2022, a jury found that Vital had engaged in false advertising and awarded Monster $271,924,174 in damages, plus additional damages for trade secret misappropriation.

A few months later, Monster filed a motion for permanent injunction to enjoin Vital’s false advertising of “super Creatine” and “creatine”—which was granted in April 2023.

Permanent restrictions

Vital Pharmaceuticals has been ordered to permanently identify and secure Monster's trade secrets in their possession, and is forbidden from revealing or using these trade secrets.

On Friday, the court ordered Vital to pay further costs, principally attorneys' fees totalling $20,972,953.90 and $6,709,552.18 for various claims.

Vital Pharmaceuticals are now under permanent restrictions—it can't put VPX products in retail spaces already contracted by Monster, take Monster products from these spaces, or hide Monster products. It is also prohibited from persuading retailers and employees to do this.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Trademarks
22 August 2022   The energy drink brands’ dispute over a ‘Red Dawg’ mark offered key takeaways on proving an intention to take unfair advantage of an earlier mark, explains trademark lawyer Olivier Vrins.
Trademarks
4 August 2022   Energy drinks brand claims victory over packaging dispute | “Hard-fought case” ends with defendant’s claims of infringement being “totally debunked” | Knobbe Martens.
Trademarks
8 January 2024   Not the ‘first rodeo’ put in motion by energy drink company, says IPOS | Court’s analysis looked at the meanings of the words, overall appearances, and pronunciation.