Olipop, a rapidly growing leader in the functional soda market, has filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Nutruit, LLC, alleging willful trademark infringement over Nutruit’s use of the “OLIPOP” mark on olive snack products. The suit, filed on August 21, 2025, provides a textbook example of modern trademark enforcement and delivers valuable lessons for retail brands seeking to protect their intellectual property amid increasingly crowded consumer categories.
Key Details of the Lawsuit
Olipop claims Nutruit is infringing its federally registered “OLIPOP” trademark by marketing olive snacks and related products using the marks “OLIPOP,” “NUTRUIT OLIPOP,” and a stylized “NUTRUIT OLIPOP” logo. According to the complaint, Nutruit’s products are being sold online—including through interactive stores and Amazon—targeting the same health-conscious consumers as Olipop, and employing channels where Olipop’s beverages are already established.
The complaint documents Olipop’s expansive trademark portfolio, including four U.S. federal registrations covering beverages and dietary supplements, with applications extending the OLIPOP mark into apparel, candles, and even frozen fruits. Olipop asserts that its substantial national advertising, market presence in over 50,000 retail locations, media coverage, and co-branding with major entertainment franchises have made its mark distinctive and broadly recognized.
Despite attempts to resolve the matter outside court—including a cease-and-desist demand—Nutruit allegedly continued selling and promoting OLIPOP-branded snacks, prompting Olipop to both oppose Nutruit’s trademark application at the USPTO and pursue federal litigation for damages, injunctive relief, and the destruction of infringing materials.
Industry Implications
1. Increasing Tension in Brand Extensions
Olipop’s case against Nutruit highlights a critical reality in today’s retail environment: as wellness and “better-for-you” brands diversify, overlapping brand territory becomes inevitable. Olipop’s allegations that Nutruit’s olive snacks target overlapping health-conscious consumers via similar distribution channels is a warning for all emerging brands—expansion strategies must be married with diligent trademark clearance and monitoring.
2. Importance of Proactive Defense
For retail and CPG companies, Olipop’s comprehensive trademark strategy—spanning categories from beverages to apparel—demonstrates the value of broad, forward-thinking registrations. The lawsuit shows that even potential indirect competition (sodas vs. olive snacks) can create actionable trademark risk if the marks are similar and the marketing overlap is meaningful.
3. E-commerce Adds Fuel to the Fire
Digital marketplaces increase both the risk of infringement and the speed at which confusion can spread. Olipop notes direct purchases from Nutruit’s site into the lawsuit’s judicial district, reflecting that online sales erase traditional geographic boundaries for infringement actions. Social media marketing—Nutruit’s use of the #Olipop hashtag to divert traffic—amplifies the risk and demands constant online monitoring for brand protection.
4. Litigation Lessons for Other Brands
-
Comprehensive Monitoring: Ensure aggressive trademark watch services for not just traditional competitors, but also adjacent-sector entrants and social media usage.
-
Fast, Documented Action: As Olipop did, act swiftly when infringement is detected—documenting correspondence, marketplace sales, and digital advertising for evidence.
-
Holistic Registration Strategies: Consider registrations in new categories before product launches to preemptively block squatters and copycats.
-
Prepare for Response: Even if initial cease-and-desist letters are ignored, legal escalation may be required—budget for both oppositions at the USPTO and potential federal litigation.
What’s Next in the Legal Battle
Pending an outcome, Olipop seeks both injunctive relief to prevent Nutruit from continuing use of the OLIPOP mark and monetary damages, including disgorgement of Nutruit’s profits and treble damages for what it alleges is willful conduct. The company also aims to compel Nutruit to destroy all infringing inventory and marketing collateral. Proceedings at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) over Nutruit’s application remain ongoing—and the parallel federal court case increases the legal stakes substantially for Nutruit.
For retail brands, this case signals that even incremental infringements—especially on fast-growing, media-savvy labels—can provoke multifaceted legal responses, from oppositions to full federal lawsuits. The era of digital-first brand growth is also the era of vigilant, broad-spectrum trademark enforcement.
Brand Protection: Action Steps
- Audit portfolios regularly for gaps and emerging threats.
- Educate marketing and product teams on the risks of even unintentional overlap.
- Respond consistently to infringement across all sales channels and geographic boundaries.
The Olipop vs. Nutruit suit is the new normal for brands in fragmented, highly competitive consumer markets.
