Home > Reading Room > Pomegranate Juice Maker- POM Wonderful, Loses Trademark Battle

Pomegranate Juice Maker- POM Wonderful, Loses Trademark Battle

Written by Fozia Cheychi on 07 August 2015

« Return to Reading Room


The Pomegranate juice maker POM Wonderful LLC has failed to stop rival energy drink maker Pur Beverages LLC from selling a pomegranate flavoured energy drink with a similar name.

This is the second time; that during an ongoing trademark dispute, the company have failed to obtain an injunction against the energy drink called ‘Pom’.

The case was heard before U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow in a Los Angeles Federal court and it was ruled that Pom did not deserve an injunction because the company could not show it would be harmed without one.

Robert Hubbard the founder of Pur Beverages told Reuters in an email that Pom poked the wrong company when they filed this frivolous suit against my company”.

Pom declined to comment.

Los Angeles based Pom, who have been using the trademark “POM” since 2002 initiated trademark infringements against Pur Beverages in 2013 for trademark infringement; they claimed that consumers would be deceived into thinking that Pur’s energy drink is associated with Pom Wonderful.

Pom’s request for an injunction was first denied in January 2014. District Judge Morrow ruled that it was unlikely Pom could show that shoppers would be confused by the rival product, and therefore unlikely to succeed in the case.

Later in December, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, overturned District Judge Morrow’s ruling, noting that both drinks have similar names and are marketed to a similar set of consumers.

On remand, District Judge Morrow stated that in order for her to impose a sales ban, Pom need to present evidence showing that it would be “irreparably harmed” if an injunction were not put in place.

Pom said that its reputation as a health-conscious brand would suffer it were associated with Pur’s energy drink. District Judge Morrow stated that these arguments were “speculative” and were not supported by evidence.

If you'd like to know more about this article please send an email to Mekael Rahman quoting the article title and any questions you might have, alternatively call the office number on 02380 235 979 or send an enquiry through our contact form.

Want to speak
to someone?

Complete the form below and we’ll call you back free of charge.

Visual Captcha