Supreme court will decide if pepsi can steal your coffee's name
The Supreme Court is stepping into the coffee wars: Can Pepsi steal Rise Coffee Co.'s name, or will small brands get steamrolled by giants? This could change everything for your favorite indies.
By Foodie Pundit Newsroom - Published - Updated - Section: Coffee Cafes
Key points
- The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether judges or juries should determine a mark's inherent strength in trademark disputes.
- The case pits independent brand Rise Coffee Co. against beverage giant PepsiCo over the use of the word 'Rise.'
- The ruling could significantly impact the legal costs and protection strategies for independent food and beverage brands.
The highest court in the land has officially entered the coffee wars. On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could fundamentally change how every coffee roaster, beverage brand, and independent restaurant protects its name. This isn't just a squabble over a logo. This is a heavyweight battle between Rise Coffee Co., the makers of the popular nitro cold-brew cans you probably see in every specialty grocer, and beverage titan PepsiCo.
At the heart of the matter is the word "Rise." For years, these two companies have been locked in a legal cage match over whether Pepsi's "Mtn Dew Rise Energy" (now rebranded after earlier court battles) stepped on the toes of the independent cold-brew brand. But the Supreme Court isn't looking at caffeine content.
They are looking at a technical, yet explosive, question: Who gets to decide how "strong" a brand name is? While that might sound like academic jargon, it is the difference between a small brand keeping its identity or getting steamrolled by a corporate giant.
The justices will decide if a judge can simply look at a trademark and rule on its strength, or if that decision must be handed over to a jury. For the food and beverage industry, where branding is often the only thing separating one oat milk latte from another, the stakes are astronomical. A jury of regular people might see "Rise" as a bold, unique identifier for coffee, while a judge might see it as a generic term for waking up. Who makes that call will dictate the future of brand protection in America. Who's On The Hook
The primary defendant here is PepsiCo Inc., one of the largest food and beverage corporations on the planet. With a portfolio that includes everything from soda to snacks, Pepsi is the ultimate example of "Big Food." In this case, Pepsi represents the corporate interest in being able to use common, aspirational words to market new products without being blocked by smaller, earlier entrants in the market.
On the other side is Rise Coffee Co., the plaintiff. Rise is a classic industry success story, having carved out a massive niche in the nitro cold-brew space. They are the quintessential "indie brand that made it big," and they argue that their entire identity is wrapped up in that four-letter word.
However, the "who" extends far beyond these two companies. If the Supreme Court rules that judges can decide a mark's strength without a jury, every independent restaurant with a catchy name like "Harvest," "Zest," or "Bloom" is on the hook. It makes it much easier for a large corporation to get a trademark lawsuit dismissed early by a single judge, rather than facing a jury of peers who might be more sympathetic to the small business owner. Pepsi ripped off Rise Coffee
The core of this dispute is a concept called "likelihood of confusion." In trademark law, you don't necessarily own a word forever. You own the right to prevent consumers from being confused. Rise Coffee Co. alleges that when Pepsi launched an energy drink under the label "Rise," it diluted their brand and tricked customers into thinking the two were related.
The legal fight has been a rollercoaster. Initially, Rise Coffee won an injunction that actually forced Pepsi to temporarily pull its "Rise" energy drinks from shelves. Later, an appeals court reversed that, leaning into the idea that the word "Rise" is "suggestive" rather than "strong." A "suggestive" mark is one that hints at what the product does (like coffee helping you rise in the morning) rather than being a completely made-up word like "Kodak."
The specific argument heading to the Supreme Court focuses on "inherent strength." Rise Coffee argues that whether a brand is strong enough to be protected is a question of fact. In the American legal system, questions of fact are supposed to be decided by juries. Pepsi, and the lower court that ruled in their favor, contend that judges should be able to weigh the "strength" of a mark as a matter of law.
Why does this matter for the average foodie? Because if judges (who are often older and perhaps less plugged into current consumer trends) get to decide what is "strong," they might dismiss the unique branding of a third-wave coffee shop as "merely descriptive." A jury of Gen Z and Millennial consumers, however, might recognize that "Rise" has become synonymous with a specific premium nitro experience. Financial Fallout
While the specific dollar amount of damages isn't the focus of this Supreme Court hearing, the financial implications are massive. For Rise Coffee, their brand is their most valuable asset. If they lose the ability to protect the "Rise" name from a competitor as large as Pepsi, the value of their company could plummet. Marketing experts often say that for a consumer-packaged goods brand, the name is 80% of the value.
For PepsiCo, the financial risk is about the cost of rebranding and the precedent it sets. They already had to pivot the marketing for their Mtn Dew energy line during this battle. If the Supreme Court makes it harder for big companies to win these cases early in the process, the cost of litigating trademark disputes will skyrocket.
But the real financial fallout will be felt by independent restaurants and startups. Trademark litigation is incredibly expensive. If the Supreme Court rules that these cases must go to a jury, it becomes much more expensive to defend a brand.
Large corporations have the "war chest" to pay for years of jury trials, whereas a small coffee roaster might be forced to settle or change their name simply because they can't afford to let a jury decide their fate. Conversely, it could give small brands more leverage, as big companies hate the unpredictability of a jury. Big Tobacco Parallels
Sources and methodology
Reported from the public datasets below.