The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) has imposed a penalty of Rs150 million on Mezan Beverages (Private) Limited for deceptive marketing practices. The company was found to have imitated the packaging and trade dress of PepsiCo’s Sting energy drink, in violation of Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010.
The Commission concluded that Mezan’s “Storm” energy drink fraudulently copied the overall look, feel, color scheme, bottle design, and branding elements of Sting, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion at the point of sale. Such conduct was deemed parasitic copying and was classified as deceptive marketing under Pakistan’s competition law.
The case dates back to 2018 when PepsiCo Inc. filed a complaint alleging that Mezan’s Storm energy drink was designed to imitate Sting and capitalize on PepsiCo’s goodwill.
Read This: How to get away with defying the Competition Commission
Instead of responding on the merits of the case, Mezan repeatedly challenged the CCP’s jurisdiction and engaged in prolonged litigation. The company obtained stay orders from the Lahore High Court in 2018 and 2021, delaying the inquiry for several years.
In June 2024, the Lahore High Court dismissed Mezan’s petition, upheld the CCP’s authority, and ruled that early challenges to show-cause notices were not maintainable. The Court clarified that proceedings under the Competition Act are separate from trademark cases. It also noted that Mezan had used litigation to delay regulatory proceedings.
Read This: Deceptive Marketing’: CCP’s battle with Mezan Beverages’ Sting-lookalike Storm continues
In its detailed order, the CCP found that Mezan’s Storm energy drink adopted:
- A red-dominant color scheme identical to Sting’s
• Bold, slanted white lettering with aggressive visual motifs
• A near-identical bottle shape and presentation
• Branding elements likely to mislead an ordinary consumer with imperfect recollection
The Commission emphasized that deception is assessed based on the overall commercial impression, not by comparing minute differences side by side. Although Mezan held a registered trademark for “Storm,” the CCP ruled that trademark registration does not provide immunity from competition law when consumer deception and passing-off are established.
While imposing the Rs150 million penalty, the Commission stated that copycat branding and misleading packaging would not be tolerated, regardless of the size or local status of the company.
