Food and beverage company Mezan has found itself under regulatory fire after the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) imposed a hefty Rs150 million fine, concluding that its energy drink “Storm” unlawfully copied the design and branding of PepsiCo’s popular product, “Sting.”
The ruling brings to a close a prolonged legal dispute that began in 2018, when PepsiCo lodged a formal complaint alleging that Mezan deliberately modeled Storm to benefit from Sting’s established market presence. After years of litigation and procedural delays, the CCP determined that the resemblance between the two products was not coincidental but a calculated attempt to mislead consumers.
According to the commission’s findings, Storm closely mirrored Sting in multiple aspects, including its predominantly red color palette, slanted white typography, aggressive visual elements, and even the bottle’s overall shape and presentation. The CCP noted that these similarities created a strong likelihood of confusion for consumers at the point of sale, particularly in a fast-moving retail environment.
Labeling the conduct as “parasitic copying,” the commission ruled that Mezan’s actions constituted deceptive marketing practices in violation of Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010. The watchdog emphasized that competition law focuses on the overall commercial impression of a product rather than minor design differences.
In a major step for kids’ health, Kuwait Bans Energy Drinks in Major Public Spaces
The case was repeatedly delayed after Mezan challenged the CCP’s jurisdiction, securing stay orders from the Lahore High Court in 2018 and again in 2021. However, the legal tide turned last year when the High Court dismissed Mezan’s petition, affirming the CCP’s authority and clarifying that early challenges to show-cause notices were not legally sustainable. The court also underscored that competition law proceedings operate independently of trademark disputes.
In its final order, the CCP stressed that holding a registered trademark does not grant immunity from competition violations if consumer deception is established. The decision sends a strong message that misleading imitation will not be tolerated, and companies attempting to capitalize on competitors’ goodwill will face serious financial consequences
