The Competition Commission of Pakistan has fined Mezan Beverages Rs150 million for deceptive marketing of its Storm energy drink, which copied the trade dress of Sting.CCP Rules Against Mezan Over Sting Lookalike ‘Storm’ Drink
The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) has imposed a penalty of Rs150 million on Mezan Beverages (Private) Limited for deceptive marketing practices linked to its Storm energy drink. In a detailed order, the regulator found that Storm’s packaging and overall trade dress closely copied PepsiCo’s Sting energy drink, creating a high risk of confusion for ordinary consumers.
According to the CCP, Mezan’s conduct amounted to parasitic copying and deceptive marketing in violation of Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010. The decision sends a clear signal that regulators are prepared to act against copycat branding, even when the products are sold under different names or have registered trademarks.
How the Dispute Over ‘Storm’ Energy Drink Began?
The case dates back to 2018, when PepsiCo Inc. filed a complaint with the CCP. The company alleged that Mezan’s Storm energy drink had been deliberately designed to imitate Sting’s look and feel, in order to benefit from the established goodwill and market recognition of Sting.
Instead of addressing the substance of the complaint, Mezan initially chose to challenge the CCP’s jurisdiction. Over the next several years, the company filed multiple petitions and obtained stay orders from the Lahore High Court in 2018 and again in 2021. These legal manoeuvres significantly slowed down the inquiry and delayed regulatory action against Storm’s packaging and promotion.
Court Upholds CCP’s Authority After Years of Litigation
The turning point came in June 2024, when the Lahore High Court dismissed Mezan’s petition and upheld the CCP’s authority to proceed. The Court ruled that early challenges to show-cause notices were not maintainable and confirmed that proceedings under the Competition Act are separate from trademark disputes.
The High Court also noted that Mezan had used litigation to delay the CCP’s inquiry for several years. By clearing the way for the Commission to continue its investigation, the Court reinforced the idea that regulators must be allowed to examine potential market abuse and misleading practices without being blocked by premature court challenges.
CCP Finds Copycat Packaging and Deceptive Trade Dress
In its final order, the CCP concluded that Storm’s trade dress copied key visual elements of Sting. These included a red-dominant colour scheme, bold slanted white lettering, aggressive visual motifs and a bottle shape that was described as ‘near-identical’ to the rival product. Taken together, these features created an overall commercial impression that was likely to mislead shoppers at the point of sale.
The Commission stressed that deception is judged by the total look and feel of the product, rather than by minor differences that may exist on closer inspection. It also clarified that holding a registered trademark for the name ‘Storm’ does not give Mezan immunity from competition law where consumer deception and passing-off are established on the facts.
Rs150m Penalty and a Warning to Copycat Brands
On the basis of its findings, the CCP imposed a penalty of Rs150 million on Mezan Beverages for violating Section 10 of the Competition Act. The Commission noted that copying the branding and packaging of a rival product amounts to free-riding on another company’s investment and misleads consumers who rely on visual cues when making quick purchase decisions.
The order makes it clear that copycat branding and misleading packaging will not be tolerated, regardless of whether the firm is a multinational or a local company. For brand owners, the case is a reminder that marketing strategies must be designed carefully to avoid confusing similarities with market leaders. For consumers, the ruling is intended to protect the right to clear and honest information at the shelf.
What the Decision Means for Marketers and Competition Law
The Storm–Sting decision highlights how competition law and intellectual property law can interact. Even where a product name or logo is registered as a trademark, businesses still need to ensure that their overall presentation does not amount to passing-off or deceptive marketing under the Competition Act.
For marketers and packaging designers, the message is to build distinct brand identities rather than riding on the success of existing products through near-identical colours, shapes and layouts. For regulators, the case shows that persistent enforcement, backed by court support, can curb parasitic copying and encourage fairer competition in fast-moving consumer goods markets such as energy drinks.
