Hey, there! Log in / Register

Polar demands that Pepsi can new line of slush with similar name

Frozen syrup, anyone?Frozen syrup, anyone?Our own Polar Beverages is suing Pepsi to try to make it rename a new line of frozen sludge drinks called "Polar Shock."

In a lawsuit filed yesterday in US District Court in Boston, Polar charges the name will make people think it had something to do with the stuff, which is now offered at BU's Agganis Arena.

Polar argues that, in addition to basic trademark issues, the new brand will harm Polar's reputation by unfairly associating it with slush laden with high-fructose corn syrup when, in fact, Polar is now promoting some of its products as "Fizzically Fit." In the complaint, Polar notes it sponsored the "Fizzically Fit Summer Tour of 2010," featuring Ayla Brown:

Polar has no control over the quality of the products or the public perception of those products that the PepsiCo Defendants offer under the POLAR SHOCK family of marks. Any failure, neglect, or default by the PepsiCo Defendants or negative public perception of PepsiCo or the POLAR SHOCK products will reflect adversely upon Polar. In this instance, this risk of negative public perception is heightened because of the choice by Polar to market, at least in part, its products as healthy, FIZZICALLY FIT products.

Polar, which sells its liquids along the East Coast, in Minnesota and on Bermuda, and which has used the Polar name since 1902, says Pepsi knew full well that Polar exists, both because the two companies have a deal under which Polar distributes Pepsi's Gatorade and because executives from the two companies serve on industry boards. Plus, Polar says, it asked Pepsi more politely last spring not to use "Polar" in the product name, especially since it already had a trademark on "Mountain Dew Shock." Pepsi, Polar alleges, refused to change the brand strategy thought up by Applebaum, a "brand identity" and "name development" firm. On its site, Applebaum explains why it simply had to use "Polar Shock:

To excite the teen and young-adult male audience, a name that evoked a visceral response seemed just right.

Polar Shock cues the category with attitude. Applebaum then developed branded flavor names to reinforce the positioning and bring flavor intensity to the brand identity: Bonechiller Cherry, Orange Frost, Razzberry Blues, Serious Strawberry, and Strawberry Melonade.

This is not Polar's first battle with a giant soda company. In the mid-1990s, Polar reacted to Coca-Cola's polar-bear ads with one showing a polar bear discarding a can of Coke in exchange for a can of Polar Seltzer. Coke sued.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Gave me some trouble for some reason. Might I suggest replacing can with pop?

up
Voting closed 0

Leave my grandfather out of this.

up
Voting closed 0

before "Pepsi" and that will remove any bottled-up confusion in the headline.

up
Voting closed 0

I get the name-jacking issue, but what's this about a soda company suing because something caused their soda brand to be associated with corn syrup and chemicals?

(It's like that old Weekend Update skit in which Nike has sued Reebok for use of the word "air." Further lawsuits are pending against the rest of the world.)

up
Voting closed 0

If you were to ask me to rank all of the soda companies based on how sugary their drinks are, I'd probably consistently rank Polar the lowest. Most sodas are very cloyingly sugary (hell, brown "soda" like Coke and Pepsi is basically caramel-flavored water) but I have never found Polar to be that way (and only buy diet Polar flavors now as a result). On top of that, Polar's own soda lineup is almost 50/50 sugar/diet choices (not even including acquired brands like Waist Watchers). Their seltzers are all just flavored seltzer water (no sugar added).

I think they make a compelling argument for not wanting to be associated (and potentially being harmed by association) with a sugar rush slush fest like "Polar Shock".

up
Voting closed 0

I forgot that nasty Polar seltzer even existed before I read this article. It shouldn't even be an issue. Most people who would be drinking Polar Shock drinks wouldn't even think of associating it. I think it's absolutely absurd to claim that you own a common word in the English language ("polar").

up
Voting closed 0

I bet you'd run into trouble if you opened a store called "Staples For You" -- even if it's a grocery store.

TD Bank had to abandon its plans to call itself "TD Commerce Bank", and Citizens Bank can't call itself that it some of the regions it has bought into. "Commerce" and "Citizen" are common nouns, but that doesn't mean you can just run over established businesses who already have those names.

Many years ago, Burger King had to rebrand one of its Ohio franchises as "Home of the Whopper" because there was already a long-standing local restaurant called "Burger King" in that town. "Burger" and "King" are pretty common nouns, too.

up
Voting closed 0

Also, it's good to know that Susan G Komen spends upwards of $1m a year of people's donated money to go after any and all small events or organizations that use any form of the phrase "for the cure" or "for a cure." They've shut down many such events, or at least forced those other organizations to spend their donors' time and money fighting the corporate, yet "non-profit," behemonth.

up
Voting closed 0

hmmmm, what about "Windows", "Apple", or "United"?

up
Voting closed 0

Because of the long fight between it and the Beatles (you know, Apple Corps). At first, it didn't seem like the Lads had much of a case - not much in common between desktop computers and LPs - but then computers and technology started to merge ...

up
Voting closed 0

I am pretty sure that computers and technology have always been "merged".

up
Voting closed 0

I meant "music and computers." Honest.

up
Voting closed 0

I go to Agganis Arena to see the "Fizzically Fit Tour 2011 with Ayla Brown, brought to you by Polar: the soft drink company that's fizzically fit!". I wander out to the concession stand to get a drink and order up a "Polar" Shock. I drink in the Pepsi-fied slush mess and am indeed shocked that Polar would claim to be fizzically fit when this mess is horrendously oversweetened.

They aren't claiming a word. They're claiming a word in the context of soft drinks. They're not suing Milazzo over "Polar Express Ice Melt" or even MW Polar Foods over "Polar brand canned tuna". Pepsi screwed up. Polar's going to win hands down.

up
Voting closed 0

This isn't nearly as silly as the Hansen Beverage company (makers of Monster Energy drinks) threatening the tiny Rock Art Brewery, makers of "Vermonster Ale". Those were both beverages, sort of, but totally different edges of the beverage industry. Polar, while regional and relatively tiny, is smack dab in the same niche as PepsiCo.

Polar legally pretty much _has_ to defend its trademark. I just checked USPTO.gov -- the database lists the trademark going back to January 1, 1902.

up
Voting closed 0

Agree. And why can't they call it ARCTIC shock?

up
Voting closed 0

Polar has owned the name and polar bear trademark for well over 100 years. Years back, when Coke started using computer animated polar bears in its holiday-season advertising (1994), Polar came up with a parody with similar polar bears who considered drinking a Coke, but tossed it in a recycling bin instead. There was a lawsuit against Polar by Coca Cola then, so this isn't the first time Polar has tussled with the big boys.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Beverages#Confl... for Wikipedia's version of the story.

up
Voting closed 0

Or I'll call Mistah Meltza on youuu.

up
Voting closed 0

It's right in the ingredient list for several products I glanced at on Polar Beverages' website. The judge should reject Claim #96 as irrelevant to the case.

Nevertheless, this looks to me like a straightforward trademark infringement case, and should be easy for Polar to win. Big banks (TD Bank, Citizens Bank) have lost cases like this when they move into territories where small local banks have similar names. I don't see how Pepsi thought they could get away with this.

up
Voting closed 0

Polar's ENTIRE LINE of "Regular" beverages contain HFCS.

Just makes the claim even more bogus.

up
Voting closed 0

What would be nice in this industry is sugared, but less-sugared drinks. Like Pepsi made once upon a time, with a lemon cola called Pepsi Light.

Polar does this, with Orange Dry and Cape Cod (cranberry) Dry.

up
Voting closed 0

I didn't say they didn't. I just said that there's easily a case to be made that they don't contain as much or don't stress it as much in their regular sodas as other companies do. You can taste it and tell the difference in just how much/how little corn syrup they are using to sweeten their sodas vs. other brands. You can also look across their entire lineup of offerings and my *guess* is that it's a smaller percentage than other companies' lineups.

Also, claim 96 is part of a larger set that is basically saying: "Polar Shock" is ONLY a sugary slush drink. "Polar" drinks are in part healthy and marketed as such under the trademarked term "Fizzically Fit". That's cause for confusion because "Polar Shock" will color the ENTIRE Polar(company) lineup as sugary slush."

I think you can agree that it's not the case that EVERY Polar drink is sugary...or even containing sugar. However, you can easily say that EVERY Polar Shock does. That's dangerous because it burdens Polar to have to unfairly distinguish major portions of its current campaign as distinct from Pepsi's one product that's intended to be sugary slush.

up
Voting closed 0

I completely understood your point. This is why I'm not a lawyer or have anything to do with law though because of silly naming cases like these.

Just rename it "Arctic Shock" and call it a day.

up
Voting closed 0

I know of a slush product called Pete's Polar Ice. Shouldn't they be going after them too?

up
Voting closed 0