Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc.

Background

Riseandshine Corporation had moved for a preliminary injunction. After hearings and briefing, the court granted that motion on November 4, 2021. The court found that Riseandshine had shown irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits of its federal trademark claim, that the balance of hardships favored Riseandshine, and that the public interest favored an injunction.

PepsiCo filed an interlocutory appeal and moved for an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction while the appeal was pending. A stay would have paused the injunction. In the alternative, PepsiCo requested eleven weeks to transition away from its MTN DEW RISE ENERGY product. PepsiCo also moved to redact portions of a filing supporting the stay request.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied the factors governing a stay pending appeal: whether the applicant showed a strong likelihood of success, whether it would suffer irreparable injury without a stay, whether a stay would substantially harm other interested parties, and where the public interest lay.

The court concluded that PepsiCo had not made a strong showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits. It also found that PepsiCo had not shown irreparable injury without a stay. The court determined that a stay would substantially injure Riseandshine by allowing PepsiCo to continue saturating the market with its product during the appeal, and that the public interest favored protecting Riseandshine’s registered mark. The court noted that the injunction did not apply to PepsiCo’s product already controlled by third-party retailers over whom PepsiCo had no control.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that PepsiCo’s motion for an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction was DENIED. The court ordered that PepsiCo’s motion to redact portions of Docket No. 150 was GRANTED. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 150 and 151.