The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted review of an appeal from Rise Brewing challenging lower court rulings that rejected its claim that PepsiCo infringed its trademarks with the name of the beverage 'Mtn Dew Rise.' The justices will hear the case during the Court’s next term, which begins in October.
PepsiCo introduced Mtn Dew Rise in 2021 as a fruit-flavored energy drink positioned toward morning consumers. Later that year, Stamford, Connecticut-based Rise Brewing filed suit, alleging that Pepsi’s use of the term 'Rise' in the product name infringed Rise’s trademarks and would cause consumer confusion with its canned coffee brand. Rise sought an unspecified amount in monetary damages and asked a court to bar Pepsi from using the 'Rise' name.
At the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Judge Lorna Schofield granted Rise’s request for a temporary injunction, finding evidence that the drink’s branding posed an 'existential threat' to Rise’s business. In response to that ruling, Pepsi temporarily renamed the product 'Mtn Dew Energy' and subsequently discontinued the offering in 2024.
The litigation took a turn when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Schofield’s order in 2022. Following the appeals court decision, Pepsi convinced Judge Schofield to dismiss the case in 2023. The district judge had concluded that Rise’s trademark rights were weak, citing what she described as 'strong logical associations between "Rise" and coffee,' and agreed with the 2nd Circuit’s assessment that the differences in the drinks’ branding were "far more notable than the similarities." The 2nd Circuit reaffirmed that stance in 2024.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, Rise argued that the question of the strength of its trademarks was a factual dispute that should not have been decided by a judge. Rise told the justices that other federal appeals courts considering similar issues have left determinations of trademark strength to juries.
Pepsi countered in its filing, characterizing the case as a routine trademark dispute, asserting that no split among federal appeals courts exists on the relevant legal questions, and arguing that the matter lacks sufficient importance to justify Supreme Court review.
The Biden Administration did not make a public filing noted in the available record; however, the filing record does include a submission from the administration of President Donald Trump urging the Supreme Court not to hear Rise’s appeal.
With the Court set to address the case in its upcoming term, the central issues will include whether the lower courts erred in resolving the factual question of trademark strength without a jury and whether the commercial overlap between a coffee brand and a fruit-flavored energy drink marketed to morning consumers creates a likelihood of consumer confusion.
Context and next steps
The Supreme Court’s decision to take the case does not prejudge the outcome. Oral arguments and a subsequent ruling will determine whether Rise’s appeal persuades the justices that the factual disputes identified by the company should have been left to a jury, or whether the lower courts correctly resolved the trademark issues as a matter of law.