ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1346453
`
`Filing date:
`
`03/15/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91247241
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`PepsiCo, Inc.
`
`PAUL J REILLY
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`2001 ROSS AVENUE
`DALLAS, TX 75201
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: nytmdpt@bakerbotts.com
`Secondary email(s): julie.albert@bakerbotts.com, paul.reilly@bakerbotts.com
`212-408-2500
`
`Brief on Merits for Plaintiff
`
`Julie Beth Albert
`
`paul.reilly@bakerbotts.com, julie.albert@bakerbotts.com,
`lucy.soyinka@bakerbotts.com, caroline.duncan@bakerbotts.com, nytm-
`dpt@bakerbotts.com, john.mitchell@bakerbotts.com
`
`/Julie Beth Albert/
`
`03/15/2024
`
`2024.03.15 PepsiCo Trial Brief.pdf(1416503 bytes )
`Appendix A.pdf(4105860 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION SERIAL NOS. 88/152,501, 88/205,171:
`
`: ROCKSTAR
`: Rockstar Industries LLC
`: October 12, 2018
`
`: February 5, 2019
`
`: ROCKSTAR
`: Rockstar Industries LLC
`: November 26, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark 1
`Applicant
`Filed
`
`Published in
`the Official Gazette
`
`Mark 2
`Applicant
`Filed
`
`Published in
`the Official Gazette
`
`IN THE MATTER OF REG. NOS. 5,956,334, 5,439,539 and 5,892,882:
`
`: ROCKSTAR
`
`
`Mark
`: Rockstar LLC
`
`Registrant
`____________________________________x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PepsiCo, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer/Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROCKSTAR INDUSTRIES LLC, and
`
`ROCKSTAR LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicants/Respondents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________x
`
`: February 5, 2019
`
`Opposition No. 91247241 (Parent)
`Cancellation No. 92075918
`Cancellation No. 92076204
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`OPPOSER PEPSICO, INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO AND PETITIONS TO CANCEL
`THE CAPTIONED U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS FOR THE MARK ROCKSTAR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ............................................................................................... 8
`
`A. Opposer’s Trial Evidence .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`B. Applicant’s Submissions to the Board ...................................................................................... 9
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................... 9
`
`A. PepsiCo’s Ownership and Use of its Well-Known ROCKSTAR Marks .................................. 9
`
`1. The Origins of Rockstar, Inc., and the Birth of ROCKSTAR .................................... 10
`
`2. PepsiCo’s Numerous Federal Registrations ............................................................... 11
`
`3. Overwhelming Evidence of Use, Including Billions of Products Sold and Millions of
`Dollars in Annual Advertising, Establish Brand Goodwill and Recognition. ............ 12
`
`B. Applicant’s Challenged Applications and Registrations for ROCKSTAR ............................. 18
`
`V. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 20
`
`A. PepsiCo Is Entitled to A Statutory Cause of Action and has Priority ..................................... 20
`
`B. Registration and Use of Applicant’s Mark Is Likely to Cause and Has Caused Confusion.... 21
`
`1. Applicant Has Caused Actual Confusion (DuPont Factors 7, 8 and 12) ................... 23
`
`2. The Parties’ Marks are Identical (DuPont Factor 1) .................................................. 27
`
`3. PepsiCo’s ROCKSTAR Marks are Commercially and Conceptually Strong (DuPont
`Factors 5, 6, 9 and 11) ................................................................................................ 32
`
`4. The Parties’ Goods at Issue are Similar, Related, and/or Complementary (DuPont
`Factor 2) ..................................................................................................................... 35
`
`5. The Goods at Issue are Purchased on Impulse (DuPont Factor 4) ............................. 42
`
`6. The Goods at Issue are Sold in Similar Channels of Trade to Similar Target Markets
`(DuPont Factor 3) ....................................................................................................... 44
`
`7. PepsiCo Has Never Agreed to Applicant’s Adoption of its Identical Marks (DuPont
`Factor 10) ................................................................................................................... 47
`
`8. Applicant’s Bad Intent Can be Presumed From its Actions and the Circumstances
`(DuPont Factor 13) ..................................................................................................... 48
`
`C. Applicant Lacks a Bona Fide Intent to Use its Mark in Commerce ........................................ 52
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`CASES
`
`INDEX OF CASES CITED
`
`Action Temp. Servs., Inc. v. Labor Force, Inc.,
`870 F.2d 1563, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 49
`
`B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 138, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 2045 (2015) ......................................................................................... 22
`
`*Bath & Body Works Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Summit Ent., LLC,
`7 F. Supp. 3d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ...................................................................................................... 43
`
`Bonaventure Associates v. Westin Hotel Co.,
`218 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 537 (T.T.A.B. June 2, 1983) .............................................................................. 21
`
`Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited Partnership v. Brad Francis Sherman,
`88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1581, 2008 WL 4149008 (T.T.A.B. 2008) ................................................................... 53
`
`*Chanel, Inc. v. Mauriello,
`Nos. 91168097, 91172654, 9204626, 2010 WL 3873650 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 20, 2010).......................... 27
`
`*Citadel Dc Holdings, LLC v. Virtual Citadel, Inc.,
`No. 91235209, 2020 WL 1864661 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2020) ............................................................. 20
`
`*Clear Choice Holdings LLC v. Implant Direct Intl,
`No. 91190485, 2013 WL 5402082 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2013) ............................................................. 26
`
`*Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC,
`978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2671 (2021) ................................................. 20
`
`*Cosmic Crusaders LLC v. Andrusiek,
`No. 2023-1150, 2023 WL 6889054 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2023) ............................................................. 21
`
`Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.,
`222 F.3d 943, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................................................... 20-21
`
`Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., Inc.,
`No. CANCELLATION 9202585, 2020 WL 5089291 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2020) ............................... 22
`
`Gen. Mills, Inc. et al. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. S.A.,
`100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1584 (T.T.A.B. 2011), judgment set aside pursuant to settlement, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d
`1679 (T.T.A.B. 2014) ........................................................................................................................... 43
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.,
`281 F.3d 1261, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................................................................... 36-37
`
`*Hybrid Athletics, LLC,
` No. 91213057, 2016 WL 7646395 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016) .............................................................. 23
`
`
`* Copy of case provided in Appendix A pursuant to TBMP § 101.03
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`In re Chippendales USA Inc.,
`622 F.3d 1346, 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 32
`
`*In Re Dub Nutrition, LLC,
`No. 77752113, 2012 WL 5196134 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2012) ................................................................ 35
`
`In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.,
`476 F.2d 1357, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ........................ 22, 23, 27, 32, 35, 42, 44, 47, 48, 51
`
`*In Re Harrison,
`No. 86134276, 2016 WL 4702452 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016) ............................................................. 43
`
`*In re Hawk Racing,
`No. 76698132, 2011 WL 4871859 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 22, 2011) ............................................................. 44
`
`*In re Leiner Health Services Corp.,
`2004 WL 1294388 (T.T.A.B. May 26, 2004)....................................................................................... 43
`
`In re Majestic Distilling Co.,
`315 F.3d 1311, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 26
`
`In re Mighty Leaf Tea,
`601 F.3d 1342, 94 U.S.P.Q.2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 22, 34
`
`*In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co.,
`6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1467 (T.T.A.B. 1988), aff’d per curiam, 864 F.2d 149 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................... 37
`
`In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp.,
`
`228 U.S.P.Q. 949 (T.T.A.B. 1986) ....................................................................................................... 36
`
`In re Shell Oil Co.,
`992 F.2d 1204, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .......................................................................... 22
`
`*In re Tropical Seas, Inc.,
`No. 77830997, 2011 WL 3828727 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2011) ............................................................. 27
`
`Kenner Parker Toys Inc. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc.,
`963 F.2d 350, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 32
`
`L’Oreal S.A. & L’Oreal USA, Inc. v. Marcon,
`102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1434 (T.T.A.B. 2012) ................................................................................................. 35
`
`Lane Ltd. v. Jackson Int’l Trading Co.,
`33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1351 (T.T.A.B. 1994) ................................................................................................... 52
`
`Lincoln National Corporation v. Kent G. Anderson,
`110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1271, 2014 WL 879506 (T.T.A.B. 2014) ................................................................... 52
`
`Lipton Indus., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.,
`670 F.2d 1024, 213 U.S.P.Q. 185 (C.C.P.A. 1982) .............................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`M.Z. Berger & Co. v. Swatch AG,
`787 F.3d 1368, 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1892 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................. 52, 53
`
`N.Y. Yankees P’ship v. IET Prods. & Servs., Inc.,
`114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1497 (T.T.A.B. 2015) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`*New Era Cap Co., Inc. v. Pro Era, LLC,
`No. 91216455, 2020 WL 2853282 (T.T.A.B. May 29, 2020) .............................................................. 32
`
`Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enters., Inc.,
`889 F.2d 1070, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Omaha Steaks Int’l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co.,
`908 F.3d 1315, 128 U.S.P.Q.2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 33
`
`On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1080, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 22
`
`*PlayNation Play Systems, Inc. v. Velex Corporation,
`924 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................................ 35
`
`*Portofino Sun Ctr. Corp.,
`OPPOSITION 111,788, 2001 WL 256125 (Feb. 27, 2001) ................................................................. 51
`
`Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton,
`54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1894 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................... 42
`
`Research in Motion Ltd. v. NBOR Corp.,
`92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1926 (T.T.A.B. 2009) ................................................................................................... 20
`
`Resource Developers, Inc. v. Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Found., Inc.,
`926 F.2d 134, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1842 (2d Cir. 1991) ............................................................................... 51
`
`Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc.,
`518 F.2d 1399, 186 U.S.P.Q. 476 (C.C.P.A. 1975) .............................................................................. 35
`
`*Savage Tavern, Inc. v. Signature Stag, LLC,
`589 F. Supp. 3d 624 (N.D. Tex. 2022) ...................................................................................... 48-49, 51
`
`
`*Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Candido Vinuales Taboada,
`No. 91232597, 2020 WL 4530518 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2020) ............................................................... 52
`
`*Stratus Networks, Inc. v. UBTA-UBET Communications Inc.,
`955 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................................. 22
`
`Swiss Grill Ltd. v. Wolf Steel Ltd.,
`115 U.S.P.Q.2d 2001 (T.T.A.B. 2015) ................................................................................................. 52
`
`Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd.,
`125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1043, 2017 WL 6336243 (T.T.A.B. 2017) ............................................................ 34-35
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Team Gordon, Inc. v. Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc.,
`98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1650, 2010 WL 5058624 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2010) ................................................... 42
`
`Tolkien Enterprises v. Joseph M. Bumb,
`95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1723, 2010 WL 2783892 (T.T.A.B. 2010) ................................................................... 53
`
`Toys R Us, Inc. v. Canarsie Kiddie Shop, Inc.,
`217 U.S.P.Q. 1137, 559 F. Supp. 1189 (E.D.N.Y. 1983) ..................................................................... 49
`
`*Treefrog Developments, Inc. v. Sakar Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 91232860, 2019 WL 4689225 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 4, 2019) ............................................................... 22
`
`*Volkswagen AG v. Mentken,
`No. 91165323, 2007 WL 1144943 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2007) ................................................................ 48
`
`Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co.,
`109 U.S.P.Q.2d 1347 (T.T.A.B. 2014), appeal dismissed per stipulation, No. 2014-1461 (Fed. Cir.
`Oct. 10, 2014) ....................................................................................................................................... 33
`
`*Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`38 F.4th 114 (11th Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................................... 23
`
`Wynn Oil Co. v. Thomas,
`5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1944, 839 F.2d 1183 (6th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 27
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1051(b)(1) ............................................................................................................................... 52
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) .............................................................................................................................. 20, 22
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1063 ......................................................................................................................................... 20
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1065 ......................................................................................................................................... 12
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1072 ......................................................................................................................................... 49
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1115 ......................................................................................................................................... 12
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Senate Judiciary Committee Report on S. 1883, S. Rep. No. 100-515, pp. 23-24 (Sept. 15, 1988) ........... 52
`
`Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (T.M.E.P.) § 1207.01(a)(i) .................................................. 35
`
`Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (T.M.E.P.) § 1207.01(d)(iii) ................................................ 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`
`
`PepsiCo’s ROCKSTAR trademark is among the most recognizable brands in the country. Rockstar
`
`Industries LLC and Rockstar LLC’s (collectively “Applicant” or “RIL”) brazen adoption of an identical
`
`ROCKSTAR mark, unsurprisingly, has caused actual confusion and unless abated, will continue to cause
`
`confusion as demonstrated by marketplace and survey evidence. Applicant’s confusingly similar trademark
`
`applications and registrations should be barred and cancelled, respectively.
`
`PepsiCo’s legitimate rights in and extensive use of ROCKSTAR cannot be denied. From its origins as
`
`a marketplace disruptor founded in 1999 through decades of prominent advertising and nationwide use, the
`
`ROCKSTAR brand, including its stylization and star logo, is extraordinarily well-known among consumers
`
`in the United States and around the world. Through over a quarter century of legitimate effort, innovative
`
`offerings, partnerships, sponsorships, events, endorsements, and advertising at the highest level–Super
`
`Bowl commercials–ROCKSTAR is an exceedingly strong, if not famous, trademark and a renowned
`
`lifestyle brand, signifying the “work hard, play hard” communities its products serve. Over 575,000,000
`
`cans of ROCKSTAR energy drink are sold in the United States alone annually, driving billions of dollars
`
`in sales and maintaining ROCKSTAR’s years-long status as one of the top five energy drink brands in the
`
`country.
`
`Beginning in 2017, nearly twenty years after ROCKSTAR’s launch, Applicant targeted PepsiCo’s
`
`powerful brand with a shotgun firing of thirty-four separate applications to register the identical, standard-
`
`character mark ROCKSTAR for goods identical, similar, complementary or related to PepsiCo’s
`
`ROCKSTAR offerings, including, for example, food and beverage products, functional consumable
`
`supplements and vitamins, energy bars, snacks, and condiments. Applicant’s applications and registrations
`
`also cover a broad and remarkably random assortment of products in addition to its consumable goods and
`
`are often accompanied by statements of “use” comprised of what appear to be digital mockups, undercutting
`
`claims of bona fide use or intention to use such marks. Applicant’s (actual or claimed) use of ROCKSTAR
`
`not only comprises the entirety of PepsiCo’s ROCKSTAR brand, but also renders the mark in a stylization
`
`that copies and calls to mind PepsiCo’s iconic star design and color combinations.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Applicant’s conduct has already caused, and will continue to cause, significant marketplace confusion.
`
`For example, consumers commenting on Applicant’s product listings online conflate Applicant with
`
`PepsiCo’s ROCKSTAR brand (to PepsiCo’s detriment), e-commerce platforms themselves have
`
`mistakenly labeled the parties as affiliated, individuals with deep marketing expertise testified to the
`
`significant risks to PepsiCo’s goodwill arising from Applicant’s ROCKSTAR marks, and an independent
`
`survey established material confusion between Applicant’s marks and PepsiCo’s ROCKSTAR brand.
`
`Applicant’s marks achieved the desired intent–to cause confusion in the minds of real consumers. This must
`
`cease to protect consumers and avoid further harm to PepsiCo’s legitimate rights.
`
`Finally, this is not Applicant’s first or only instance of adopting confusingly similar trademarks, having
`
`previously been denied registrations for trademarks identical or confusingly similar to others. Applicant’s
`
`abuse of the trademark register and wrongful adoption, use and registration of marks identical to PepsiCo’s
`
`ROCKSTAR marks must be stopped.
`
`II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`The record includes the Board’s orders, the parties’ pleadings, the file histories for the Applicant’s
`
`at-issue applications and registrations for ROCKSTAR, and the following:
`
`A. Opposer’s Trial Evidence
`
`1. Opposer PepsiCo timely filed with the Board on September 29 and October 3, 2023 the
`
`testimonial declarations of the following witnesses: (i) Paul A. Lee, Senior Director–Trademark Counsel,
`
`for PepsiCo, with Exhibits A-L, dated October 3, 2023 (41 TTABVUE, “Lee”); (ii) Sean Bonthuys, Senior
`
`Director of Brand Marketing, Energy Portfolio, for PepsiCo, with Exhibits A-F, dated October 3, 2023 (44
`
`TTABVUE, “Bonthuys”); and (iii) survey expert Sarah Butler, managing director at NERA Economic
`
`Consulting, with Exhibits 1-2, dated September 28, 2023 (40 TTABVUE, “Butler”).
`
`2. Opposer PepsiCo timely filed on January 17, 2024, the rebuttal testimonial declaration of Sean
`
`Bonthuys, for PepsiCo, with Exhibits D-G, dated January 17, 2024 (81, 82 TTABVUE, “Bonthuys Reb.”).
`
`3. Opposer PepsiCo timely filed with the Board on October 4, 2023, a Notice of Reliance with
`
`Exhibits A-Y (45-51 TTABVUE, “Pet. NOR”), which includes, among other items, Exhibit C, excerpts
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`from the January 5, 2021 deposition transcript of Samuel Keeler, founder and CEO of Applicant (51
`
`TTABVUE 37, “Keeler”).
`
`4. Opposer filed with the Board on January 17, 2024, a Second Notice of Reliance with Exhibits
`
`AA–EE (80 TTABVUE, “Pet. 2nd NOR”), which includes, among other items Exhibit AA, excerpts from
`
`the January 5, 2021 deposition transcript of Samuel Keeler (80 TTABVUE 10, “Keeler 2”).
`
`All of the foregoing are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`B. Applicant’s Submissions to the Board
`
`1. Applicant filed with the Board on dates between November 28, 2023 and December 3, 2023,
`
`seven Notices of Reliance with multiple exhibits each. (52-59 TTABVUE).
`
`2. Applicant filed with the Board on December 4, 2023, a Declaration of Sam Keeler with Exhibit
`
`A (60-79 TTABVUE, “Keeler Dec.”).
`
`3. Applicant did not offer any expert testimony or evidence during the applicable time period.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`There are two questions to be decided at trial, namely:
`
`1. Whether Applicant’s applied-for and registered ROCKSTAR marks at issue, namely, App. Ser.
`
`Nos. 88152501 and 88205171 and Reg. Nos. 5956334, 5439539 and 5892882 covering goods in Classes 5,
`
`29, and 30 (together, the “RIL Marks”), for all of the identified goods therein are likely to cause confusion,
`
`mistake or otherwise deceive consumers under Section 2(d) of the United States Trademark (“Lanham”)
`
`Act as to the source of the goods, or as to an affiliation or connection with PepsiCo in light of, inter alia,
`
`PepsiCo’s previously registered and common law use of the ROCKSTAR marks, including as set forth in
`
`PepsiCo’s Amended Consolidated Notice of Opposition, 8 TTABVUE 9, and cancellation petitions; and
`
`2. Whether Applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use the applied-for mark ROCKSTAR at the
`
`time of filing App. Ser. Nos. 88152501 and 88205171. 8 TTABVUE 14-15, ¶ 11.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A. PepsiCo’s Ownership and Use of its Well-Known ROCKSTAR Marks
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`1. The Origins of Rockstar, Inc., and the Birth of ROCKSTAR
`
`PepsiCo’s ROCKSTAR mark is an extraordinarily well-known and valuable brand, under which
`
`PepsiCo and its predecessor-in-interest2 have sold billions of products over well over two decades and have
`
`established a reputation as one of the country’s largest and best-known providers of energy drinks and
`
`related products and services. Bonthuys, ¶ 38; Pet. NOR, Ex. T at 1 (ROCKSTAR05970).3
`
`The ROCKSTAR brand began in the late 1990s, when PepsiCo’s predecessor-in-interest, Rockstar,
`
`Inc., was founded in 1999 by Russell Weiner. Pet. NOR, Ex. O at 51. Weiner saw an opportunity to develop
`
`an innovative new beverage driving momentum and recovery for high-energy lifestyles. A true marketplace
`
`disruptor, Weiner’s vision included a unique value proposition—twice the liquid for the same price.
`
`Bonthuys, ¶ 9, and Ex. A at 96 (ROCKSTAR01036). ROCKSTAR beverages were broadly launched to the
`
`consuming public in 2001 and grew quickly and exponentially. Bonthuys, Ex. A at 96 (ROCKSTAR01036);
`
`Pet. NOR, Ex. O at 51. ROCKSTAR beverages are renowned not only for their burst of energy and flavor
`
`but also for their functionality; products like PepsiCo’s ROCKSTAR RECOVERY energy drink “is
`
`designed to refresh, recharge & rehydrate,” by including “coconut water, collagen and consumers’ 100%
`
`daily dose of vitamin C to help [] reset and hydrate for any activity” and PepsiCo’s ROCKSTAR
`
`UNPLUGGED energy drink includes hemp seed “to relax your mind & uplift your mood.” See, e.g., Pet.
`
`NOR, Ex. U at 1 (ROCKSTAR01109) (internal quotations omitted); Bonthuys, ¶ 29, and Ex. A at 101, 119
`
`(ROCKSTAR01041 and -3434). Through decades of product development, promotion, expansion, and
`
`
`2 Hereinafter, references to “PepsiCo,” “Pepsi” and “Petitioner” include PepsiCo’s predecessor-in-interest.
`
`3 PepsiCo uses the following citation formatting: Document, paragraph number or Document, Exhibit
`
`number at page number (Bates number). All citations to the record are to documents identified in Opposer’s
`
`Trial Evidence and Applicant’s Evidence. For example, this citation refers to paragraph 38 of the Bonthuys
`
`Declaration filed by Petitioner on October 3, 2023—Bonthuys (Document), ¶ 38 (paragraph)—and page
`
`1 of Exhibit T attached to the Petitioner’s Notice of Reliance, labeled ROCKSTAR05970—Pet. NOR
`
`(Document), Ex. T (Exhibit) at 1 (page) (ROCKSTAR05970) (Bates number).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`exponential growth, the ROCKSTAR term has always and continues to connote the hustle, entrepreneurial
`
`spirit, work hard/play hard mentality, and quest for achievement embodied by its consumers and target
`
`markets. See, e.g., Bonthuys, ¶¶ 8, 14, 18. In line with the company’s origins, the ROCKSTAR brand
`
`inspires consumers to look beyond how things are done to find a better way. Bonthuys, ¶¶ 9, 14.
`
`When it comes to food and beverage, the ROCKSTAR brand is in a league of its own: no other
`
`company, business, or entity uses ROCKSTAR for energy drinks. Bonthuys, ¶ 58. Rockstar Inc. and
`
`PepsiCo have continuously and substantially, exclusively marketed, advertised, promoted and sold billions
`
`of energy drinks under the ROCKSTAR brand, an investment of tremendous time and hundreds of
`
`millions–if not billions–of dollars in resources. See, e.g., Bonthuys, ¶¶ 15, 36-39, 45, and Ex. A at 110
`
`(ROCKSTAR01050). PepsiCo, one of the largest direct-to-store distribution networks in the world, has
`
`distributed ROCKSTAR products since at least 2009. Pet. NOR, Ex. V at 24 (ROCKSTAR05840).
`
`PepsiCo’s resources, including its fleets of trucks, co-packaging, and merchandising expertise, only
`
`expanded the already-strong sales and market position of ROCKSTAR-branded products. Recognizing the
`
`extraordinary product and consistent brand value of ROCKSTAR, PepsiCo acquired Rockstar Inc. in the
`
`spring of 2020 for $3.85 billion. Pet. NOR, Ex. V at 1 (ROCKSTAR01107), and was assigned the pertinent
`
`registrations in April 2020. Pet. NOR, Ex. J at 97-104 (ROCKSTAR000294-301); Lee, Ex. A, and Ex. B.
`
`2. PepsiCo’s Numerous Federal Registrations
`
`Beyond the significant common-law rights established through PepsiCo’s longstanding and
`
`prominent use, PepsiCo owns numerous U.S. trademark and service mark registrations incorporating
`
`ROCKSTAR or variants, including, but not limited to, the following4:
`
`Table 1: PepsiCo’s Exemplary ROCKSTAR Marks
`
`Mark
`
`Reg. No. Reg. Date Date of First Use
`
`Identification of Goods
`
`ROCKSTAR
`ENERGY DRINK
`
`Reg. No.
`2613067
`
`August
`27, 2002
`
`January 16, 2001 Class 32: Sports drinks,
`namely, energy drinks.
`
`
`4 PepsiCo’s foregoing marks, as registered and/or used in commerce, and incorporated herein by reference,
`
`are individually and/or collectively referred to as the “ROCKSTAR Marks” or “ROCKSTAR Brand.”
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`ROCKSTAR
`JUICED
`ROCKSTAR
`
`ROCKSTAR
`ROASTED
`ROCKSTAR
`PUNCHED
`
`
`
`Reg. No.
`2784403
`Reg. No.
`3190229
`Reg. No.
`3398516
`Reg. No.
`3423897
`Reg. No.
`3508269
`
`November
`18, 2003
`December
`26, 2006
`March 18,
`2008
`May 6,
`2008
`September
`30, 2008
`
`January 8, 2000
`
`Class 32: Sports drinks,
`namely, energy drinks.
`February 1, 2006 Class 32: Sports drinks,
`namely, energy drinks.
`Class 32: Sports drinks,
`namely, energy drinks.
`Class 32: Energy drinks
`
`August 19, 1999
`
`December 15,
`2007
`September 15,
`2007
`
`Class 32: Energy drinks
`
`See Lee, ¶ 6, Ex. C, and Ex. D; Pet. NOR, Ex. J at 1-59. PepsiCo’s registrations are valid, subsisting, in full
`
`force and effect, uncancelled and unrevoked, serving as prima facie evidence of PepsiCo’s ownership and
`
`exclusive right to use such marks in connection with the registered goods, as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1115.
`
`Lee, ¶ 9. Many of PepsiCo’s registrations are incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065, including, inter
`
`alia, each of the registrations listed in Table 1. Lee, ¶ 6, Ex. C, and Ex. D; Pet. NOR, Ex. J at 1-59.
`
`3. Overwhelming Evidence of Use, Including Billions of Products Sold and Millions
`of Dollars in Annual Advertising, Establish Brand Goodwill and Recognition.
`
`As a result of decades of use, ROCKSTAR is consistently ranked as one of the largest and most
`
`successful energy drink brands in the country by sales volume and customer awareness, and has been
`
`recognized in the “top five” rankings for energy drinks since as early as 2015 and as recently as 2022. Pet.
`
`NOR, Ex. V at 15-19 (ROCKSTAR05817-18, -31-32), and Ex. O at 13, 16 (ROCKSTAR05824, -27);
`
`Bonthuys, ¶ 16. Indeed, industry publication Beverage Digest has recognized ROCKSTAR, since at least
`
`as early as 2015 and prior to any applications filed by Applicant, among the top carbonated soft drinks
`
`(“CSDs”) and since at least as early as 2017, among energy drink “megabrands” (brands or trademarks with
`
`more than 100M cases total volume). See Pet. NOR, Ex. T at 5, 9 (ROCKSTAR05974, -78). Before 2013,
`
`PepsiCo had offered products in 30 countries around the world and sold more than one billion cans of
`
`ROCKSTAR products. Bonthuys, Ex. A at 96 (ROCKSTAR01036). Continuing since 2013, PepsiCo sells
`
`more than 10 million cases of ROCKSTAR products annually. Bonthuys Reb., Ex. G and ¶ 13. Indeed, as
`
`early as 2019, PepsiCo sold more than 575,000,000 cans of ROCKSTAR products in the United States each
`
`year. Bonthuys, ¶¶ 38-39 and Ex. A at 2 (ROCKSTAR00060). PepsiCo’s extraordinary investment in
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`advertising has driven enormous sales. For example, from 2020 to April 2023, PepsiCo sold over 1.2 billion
`
`units, with more than $2.4 billion dollars in sales:
`
`Table 2: PepsiCo’s ROCKSTAR Sales from 2020-2023
`
`Year
`2020
`2021
`2022
`2023 (ending April 16, 2023)
`
`Dollar Sales
`$782,100,549
`$704,479,440
`$708,182,893
`$214,918,029
`
`Bonthuys, Ex. C at 12 (ROCKSTAR01161); see also Bonthuys, ¶¶ 38-39.
`
`The ROCKSTAR Brand’s recognition and value far predate the PepsiCo acquisition, but since
`
`acquiring Rockstar Inc., PepsiCo has continued to invest heavily in the brand. PepsiCo spends, on average,
`
`well over $62,000,000 annually on advertisements and media promoting the ROCKSTAR Brand. Pet.
`
`NOR, Ex. W at 89 (ROCKSTAR01180); Bonthuys, Ex. C at 10 (ROCKSTAR01159) ($72.2 million in
`
`2022 and $62.8 million in 2023). Such promotions make prominent use of the ROCKSTAR Marks,
`
`generating significant consumer exposure–in 2022 alone, PepsiCo’s branded media generated 4.6 billion
`
`impressions. Bonthuys, ¶¶ 30, 37, 45-48; Pet. NOR, Ex. W at 72 (ROCKSTAR01163). Such advertising
`
`has been placed in every conceivable form and location, including a Super Bowl advertisement in 2021,
`
`depicted below, that featured Lil Baby and was viewed on more than 720 million televisions (see Pet. NOR,
`
`Ex. O at 53) and drove more than 2.