Personally I appreciate the transparency in ownership/company. It’s good to see ‘who’ is involved in formulating the brand and supplements unlike others where that person/people are a mystery. Especially in this Industry.
1 Like
That’s what I was thinking too
1 Like
From the for what it’s worth category…
PureCaf from the folks at MTS…and Tiger Fitness (Insert BOOM! here)
And for you L-Norvaline junkies (sorry could not resist):
2 Likes
These guys were saying that companies promoting GDAs were irresponsible on their IG yesterday 
1 Like
plus 20% off with code BESEEN today… I am going to wait a while on this one, looks cool, but whatever. Ghost has bummed with out with their Aminos and the artificial dyes that just stain the hell out of my shakers. Legend does not, but still!
2 Likes
Riveting story telling guys. He made the flavor, thought it was awesome, cause come on ALPHA. Then, Sonic hated it, wow plotttt twisssttt. So he took an L guys, he took an L. How did he sleep that night, man o man
1 Like
BeSeen and BeALegend are year round 20% off Codes for Ghost as FYI
2 Likes
I thought it was a good story…Love the behind the scenes stuff. How many other companies would have simply said ‘fuck it’ (can I say that on here?)
lol so vpx is going to sue monster for their new reign energy drink, and at the same time release a pre workout named reign?
1 Like
I think they “believed” they had named the product first.
1 Like
So I guess now OL can sue VPX now too? or not, because it’s technically a drink and not a powder pre?
1 Like
Little bit different there:
(1). OL’s is spelt with the number 1 (Re1gn);
(2). The formulas/ingredients in Re1gn v. the Reign RTD are incredibly different and not subject to any deceptive trade practice acts, based on a “product likeness” claim. One is a hardcore pre powder and one is a RTD with a similar ingredient profile to the original BANG energy. Re1gn has no such similarities, to form the basis for any reasonable judge to hear the suit or reasonable lawyer to file that suit. Other than caffeine, it’s not a reasonable argument.
Generally, courts look to a number of factors. The ingredient profile, name, similarity of the product and its intended market consumer will form a very reasonable ground for suit, based on several claims (I’m not sure exactly what they’re being sued for - but there atleast three viable claims).
Being said, I don’t see VPX prevailing. Coca-cola could simply push around anyone in legal fees (think when Monster/Coca-cola sued VPX). Similar to the chip leader at a poker table, they could just simply eat the costs if VPX prevails… but Coca-cola is entitled to make a similar product to its biggest competition in the energy drink field.
VPX will argue Coca-cola’s argument is a hypocritical stance compared to its assertions against VPX in the precious suit, when it sued VPX.
5 Likes
VPX is no small potato, and can afford all legal fees.
With that being said a quick TM search, will tell ya, Monster/coca-cola have extremely strong footing here.
Absolutely - but nothing compared to Coca-cola. Trademark is only half the battle too. Just cause I filed first and obtained it first, doesn’t make it concrete or not subject to liability for fraud, theft, or other concerns.
1 Like
Should be entertaining