5/14/2015

1

Polar Corp vs. PepsiCo.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff’s PresentationMay 21, 2015

1

2

5/14/2015

2

3

Likelihood of Confusion Factors

(1) Similarity of the marks;

(2) Similarity of the goods;

(3) The parties’ channels of trade;

(4) The parties’ advertising;

(5) Classes and sophistication of prospective purchasers;

(6) Evidence of actual confusion;

(7) Defendant’s intent in adopting its mark; and

(8) Strength of the plaintiff’s mark.

4

5/14/2015

3

POLARShock

5

POLAR

BeverageNon‐alcoholicNon‐carbonated Best Consumed Cold Brightly‐colored fruit flavors

Dispensed from machines

Registered in Class 32

POLAR SHOCK

Beverage Non‐alcoholic Non‐carbonated Best Consumed Cold Brightly‐colored fruit flavors

Dispensed from machines

Seeking Registration in Class 32

The Goods Are Similar

6

5/14/2015

4

Sales Channels Directly Overlap

POLAR

Convenience Stores

Event Venues

Entertainment Venues

Supermarkets

Mark Used at Point of Sale

POLAR SHOCK

Convenience Stores

Event Venues

Entertainment Venues

Supermarkets

Mark Used at Point of Sale

7

Similar Consumers

POLAR / Polar ShockDirect competition with each other and other non‐alcoholic drinks

Market includes young males – high school and college students.  

Inexpensive and Impulse driven

8

5/14/2015

5

[A]ll chilled nonalcoholic beverages . . . are closely related for many beverage purchasing decisions.  The competition . . . is for 

‘the beverage share of the belly.’‐ Best Flavors, 886 F. Supp. 908, 914 (D. Me 1995)

9

POLAR is a Strong Mark

• Registered and in use for more than 100 years

• Substantial advertising and sales

– $7.2 Million in advertising in 2010

– $70 Million in revenue in 2010

• POLAR is inherently distinctive

10

5/14/2015

6

POLAR Stands Apart

Alcoholic Beverages

• Polar Ice

• Malta Polar

Geographic Limitations

• Polar Krush (cancelled)

• Polar Bear Natural Spring Water  (canc. pending)

• Polar Chill (CA, NV)

Non‐Trademark Use

• Hawaiian Punch Polar Blast 

• Slush Puppie Polar Purple Shiver

11

Pepsi Knew About the Likelihood of Confusion With Polar

• Registered mark provided constructive notice

• POLAR in use for more than 100 years

• Business relationship between the companies

• Could have used PEPSI SHOCK.  

• Mislead Polar about the use and distribution of POLAR SHOCK 

12

5/14/2015

7

POLAR Will Suffer Irreparable Harm• “Where there is a high probability of consumer confusion, injury 

irreparable in the sense that it may not be fully compensable in damages almost inevitably follows.”  Camel Hair, 799 F.2d 6, 15 (1st Cir. 1986)

– Money damages cannot make POLAR whole.

– POLAR will lose control of its reputation and goodwill.

– No control over quality or public perception of Defendants’ product.

13

14

5/14/2015

1

Polar Corporation, Plaintiff,

v. 

PepsiCo, Inc. and The Concentrate Manufacturing Co. of Ireland, 

Defendants.

Defendants’ Presentation

May 21, 2015

Why Are We Here? 

5/14/2015

2

Preliminary Injunction Standard

• Extraordinary and drastic remedy

• Plaintiff carries burden to show:

I. Substantial likelihood of success on merits  

II. Significant risk  of irreparable harm

III. Balance of equities favors injunction

IV. Public interest favors injunction

No Substantial Likelihood of Success Because No Confusion

Plaintiff has a weak mark

Parties’ marks are dissimilar

Parties’ goods differ

Almost no overlap in trade channels

No evidence of actual confusion

Different demographic of prospective purchasers

Parties’ advertising differs

Defendant adopted mark in good faith

5/14/2015

3

No confusion: POLAR is a weakmark in a crowded field

No Confusion: “Total Effect” of Marks Differ

5/14/2015

4

No Confusion: Goods Differ

• Traditional beverages

• Water, seltzer, mixers, soda

• Purchased, stored, consumed at a later date

• Stand-alone machines, service package, concentrate

• Frozen slush confection

• For immediate consumption

No Confusion: Advertising, Consumers, Distribution Channels Differ

• Theme: Mild, Conservative

• Ad: “Get Fizzically Fit”

• Channel: Grocery Stores (95%)

• Theme: Edgy, Intense, Young Men

• Ad: “Ready for a Shock?”

• Channel: Convenience Stores (99%)

5/14/2015

5

No Confusion: Literally No Confusion

• Undisputed: No evidence of actual confusion

• Co‐existence in same market for >7 months

No Confusion: Other Important Factors

• No intent to deceive consumers

• No intent to emulate Plaintiff’s brand

• PTO Already Approved Pepsi’s Marks: Two different examiners approved all 10 of PepsiCo’s Polar Shock applications without objection

5/14/2015

6

1/26/2011Polar nowseeks P.I.

6/14/2010Polar letter to Pepsi

6/23/2010Pepsi responds

7/2010Pepsi Launches Polar Shock

11/16/2010Polar Responds

June Sept Dec

PLAINTIFF’S 7 ½ MONTH DELAYJuly Aug Oct Nov Jan 2011

Pepsi Invests Over $15MInstalls 7783 Machines

No Urgency, No EquityWhile Polar waited…

Public Interest:Beverages and Slush Treats 

ICY ARCTIC GLACIAL

Arctic Shatter

Arctic Rush

FROSTY

Frost Riptide Rush Glacier FreezeGatorade Ice

Frostee Icee Goofy’s Glaciers

5/14/2015

7

Public Interest:Who Owns the Right to Cold, Refreshing Drinks?

Public Interest:Slush Drinks are Supposed to be Frozen!

5/14/2015

8

PI Factors

I. Likelihood of success on the merits?  No.

II. Irreparable harm?  No.

III. Balance of equities favor injunction?  No.

IV. Public interest favor injunction?  No.