Home » Trade Marks » Pepsi Twist vs Lemon Twist

Pepsi Twist vs Lemon Twist

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

soft-2262307_640Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Tyrone Walker of Moore Attorneys on the subject of a soft drink trade mark battle in South Africa. This post has been reproduced with the permission of the author. 

The soft drink battle of “PEPSI TWIST” versus “LEMON TWIST” continued in South Africa in the Supreme Court of Appeal.

In 2006, PepsiCo had applied for the registration of the trade mark “PEPSI TWIST”. Atlantic Industries (“Atlantic”), a wholly owned subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Company had opposed these trade mark applications. The basis of Atlantic’s opposition was that “PEPSI TWIST” was confusingly similar to their current trade marks  “TWIST”, “LEMON TWIST” and “DIET TWIST”. PepsiCo responded with a counter action by applying for the expungement (“removal”) of Atlantic’s marks.

The basis of the (“removal”) application by PepsiCo was that it believed the word “TWIST” is a common English word which meant “a beverage of mixed ingredients”. A common word that is used in the industry cannot be protected by means of a trade mark. A good example is that no third party can have exclusive rights to the word “APPLE” if they are a fruit and vegetable shop. However, “APPLE” in relation to computers and cell phones is very distinctive and unique and hence why Apple Inc. have registered their brand as a trade mark in nearly every country in the world.

PepsiCo argued that Atlantic’s marks are not capable of distinguishing its beverages from those of other proprietors/owners of soft drinks. The Supreme Court of Appeal rejected PepsiCo’s contention and commented that this definition was “obsolete English slang, known by very few, if any, South African consumers, even those whose first language was English”.

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that most South African consumers would perceive the word “TWIST” as an arbitrary brand name without meaning and thus capable of distinguishing Atlantic’s beverages from those of others.

Atlantic presented overwhelming evidence that “TWIST” has been widely used as a trade mark on millions of cans and bottles of soft drinks and through substantial advertising expenditure.

The Supreme Court then dealt with the opposition to the registration of the “PEPSI TWIST” trade mark. The Court found that the word “TWIST” was the dominant feature and there would be a likelihood of deception or confusion when comparing the “LEMON TWIST” or “DIET TWIST” trade marks with “PEPSI TWIST”.

It also looked at the use of the word “TWIST” as a sub-brand, as there is a worldwide trend of companies using primary and sub-brands, e.g. Pepsi-Cola and Pepsi Wild Cherry. The Court stated that the sub-brand is important to consumers and they may refer to the sub-brand when identifying or requesting the product. The Court found that there would be confusion if PEPSI used the word “TWIST” as a sub-brand.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed PepsiCo’s appeal with costs. Atlantic protected its valuable “TWIST” or “LEMON TWIST” brand.

Tyrone Walker  12 October 2017


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: