Sting versus Storm: PepsiCo wins over Pakistani energy drink company in legal battle
21 January 2026
In a landmark ruling in Pakistan’s competition law jurisprudence, the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) recently ruled in favour of PepsiCo in a dispute against local company Mezan Beverages, which was found to have violated the Competition Act, 2010.
PepsiCo accused Mezan of using deceptive marketing practices under Section 10(d) by copying the trade dress of its energy drink Sting for the latter’s own energy drink Storm. The label and packaging for Storm constituted a copycat or parasitic version of Sting’s own distinctive label and packaging. PepsiCo believed Mezan deliberately resorted to copying its product’s design to mislead consumers.
The multinational company also noted the similarity between the names Sting and Storm.
Sting is a popular energy drink in Asia. Both companies have registered trademarks for their beverage brands.
Sana Shaikh Fikree | a counsel @ Vellani & Vellani, Karachi
“CCP has made clear observations concerning its authority to investigate and penalize conduct that misleads consumers, distorts competition, or unfairly exploits the goodwill of established brands,” said Sana Shaikh Fikree, a counsel at Vellani & Vellani in Karachi.
Initially, there was the question of whether the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the CCP or the Intellectual Property Tribunal. Mezan’s counsel believed the latter should handle the case. However, the CCP asserted its authority over commercial matters in relation to fair competition.
“Importantly, the Commission clarified that while it does not decide or provide guidance on the allocation, availability or ownership of trademarks, matters that fall within the domain of the Intellectual Property Organization, it is fully empowered to take prohibitive action against deceptive marketing practices,” Fikree remarked.
According to her, the Commission interpreted Section 10(d) in line with the common law principles of passing off, viewing the scope of the prohibitive provisions under Section 10(d) as not limited to mere “exact replicas.” Instead, the provisions encompass marks, names, labelling or packaging that are confusingly or deceptively similar.
“Moreover, consistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Commission has reaffirmed that the likelihood of consumer confusion must be assessed from the perspective of the ordinary consumer, rather than through a technical or specialized lens.
The Commission reiterated that parasitic imitation, even if falling short of direct counterfeiting, can still result in consumer confusion and constitutes willful deceit intended to exploit the reputation and goodwill of an established brand,” Fikree explained. The decision, she said, reinforces the principle that competition law also protects against subtler forms of imitation aside from actual counterfeiting.
Furthermore, the CCP refused to absolve Mezan of liability on the argument that its marketing strategy was a common practice in the industry, thereby protecting the end consumer.
Likewise, it held that trademark registration does not free a party from liability under competition law if parasitic copying or deceptive trade dress is involved.
“By consistently addressing parasitic copying and misrepresentation, the CCP has sent a strong signal that consumer protection and market integrity remain paramount,” said Fikree.
The Commission imposed a PRs150 million (US$536,400) penalty on Mezan.
- Espie Angelica A. de Leon
