Sierra Mist Lawsuit, Viral TikTok Controversy Did a TikToker Really Force PepsiCo to Kill Sierra Mist? Shocking Truth Behind the Viral Lawsuit Claims
TikTok influencer Cierra Mistt claims PepsiCo tried to sue her over trademark infringement, alleging the beverage giant sent cease-and-desist letters demanding she stop using her online name. She further claims PepsiCo’s trademark lapsed, allowing her to purchase the rights—and that this forced PepsiCo to rebrand Sierra Mist as Starry. But here’s the truth: no lawsuit was ever filed, PepsiCo still owns active Sierra Mist trademarks, and the rebrand had nothing to do with any influencer.
The Sierra Mist “lawsuit” has exploded across social media, racking up millions of views and sparking intense debate about corporate power versus influencer rights. Cierra Mistt claimed she received a cease-and-desist letter from PepsiCo, alleging trademark infringement, and suggested this legal pressure led directly to Sierra Mist’s January 2023 discontinuation and replacement with Starry.
The timing seemed too perfect. The viral narrative gained traction after TikTok creator Cierra Mistt, known for posting airline and travel content, shared that she received a cease and desist letter from PepsiCo regarding the use of her online name. Her followers quickly connected the dots: influencer gets legal threat, soda disappears, new brand launches. The David versus Goliath story was irresistible.
But fact-checkers, trademark attorneys, and USPTO records tell a completely different story.
What Cierra Mistt Claims Happened
The influencer claims that PepsiCo sent her a cease and desist letter, instructing her to stop using the name “Cierra Mistt” as it is similar to their soda brand. According to her viral TikTok and YouTube videos, she initially considered changing her online persona to comply.
Then came the dramatic twist. Cierra said that she almost considered changing her name as they asked but found out the company didn’t have the right to do so anymore. She claims she discovered PepsiCo’s Sierra Mist trademark had lapsed, swooped in to purchase the rights herself, and turned the tables on the corporate giant.
In a TikTok video from February 2023, she clearly stated that Pepsi attempted to sue her but failed. She even mentioned in the video’s description that for legal purposes, “the conflict was amicably resolved”.
The influencer suggested PepsiCo rebranded to Starry specifically to avoid legal consequences from her ownership of the Sierra Mist name—a narrative that sent shockwaves through TikTok and beyond.
The Truth: No Lawsuit Ever Existed
Despite millions of views and widespread belief in Mistt’s claims, no official court records have been found that cement the existence of the case. Legal experts and fact-checkers have thoroughly investigated these allegations.
There is no evidence of any federal lawsuit or USPTO opposition proceeding between the parties regarding the name. No court filings, no settlement agreements, no trademark cancellation proceedings—nothing appears in public legal databases.
What about the cease-and-desist letter Mistt claims to have received? Sending a cease and desist letter is a routine part of trademark policing. It’s not a lawsuit, and receiving one doesn’t mean the sender is losing or has lost a dispute. Companies regularly send these letters to protect their intellectual property without ever filing formal legal action.
PepsiCo Still Owns Sierra Mist Trademarks
The most damaging blow to Mistt’s narrative: PepsiCo still owns the Sierra Mist trademark, even though the product was discontinued. Trademark rights don’t automatically expire when a product is pulled from shelves.
PepsiCo still owns the U.S. federal trademark registration for SIERRA MIST. A quick search of the USPTO database confirms that the registration remains valid and in force. Multiple trademark attorneys have verified this information independently.
Podcast hosts Ashley Elliott and Mike Carr fact-checked the influencer’s claim using the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database, confirming PepsiCo retained all Sierra Mist trademark rights throughout the alleged dispute.
The claim that trademarks automatically lapse when products are discontinued reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of intellectual property law. Even if a company isn’t actively selling a product, they can hold onto the trademark as long as they show some level of business activity across state lines.
Why Sierra Mist Really Became Starry
The decision to discontinue Sierra Mist and replace it with Starry was driven by years of declining popularity. Sierra Mist, originally launched in 1999 to compete with Coca-Cola’s Sprite, never gained dominant market share in the lemon-lime soda category.
The numbers were brutal. Sierra Mist held less than 1% of the market when PepsiCo officially conceded in the Starry vs Sprite beverage war by discontinuing the product in 2023. After more than two decades of trying to compete with Sprite’s market dominance, PepsiCo needed a complete strategic reset.
PepsiCo has defended its decision by emphasizing that Starry is a completely new product. Danielle Barbaro, Vice President of Research and Development at PepsiCo North America, highlighted that Starry was developed to have stronger citric acid flavors and a “crisper, more aromatic” taste compared to Sierra Mist.
The rebrand targeted Gen Z consumers with fresh branding, updated flavor profiles, and modern marketing—none of which had anything to do with an influencer’s cease-and-desist letter.
Understanding Cease-and-Desist vs. Lawsuits
The Sierra Mist controversy highlights widespread confusion about intellectual property enforcement. Instead, PepsiCo appears to have sent a cease and desist letter based on potential consumer confusion—particularly around the similar pronunciation and spelling of the names. This is standard practice in trademark enforcement.
Cease-and-desist letters serve as formal warnings before legal action. They don’t represent court proceedings, settlements, or legal victories. Receiving one doesn’t mean the sender lost anything—it means they’re actively protecting their brand.
If Mistt had actually purchased Sierra Mist trademark rights, those transactions would appear in USPTO records. If PepsiCo had filed a lawsuit, court documents would be publicly accessible. If a settlement had been reached, some documentation would exist. None of these records exist because no legal case ever materialized.
Trademark vs. Copyright: The Legal Confusion
One of the biggest misunderstandings in this controversy centers on the distinction between trademarks and copyrights: Trademarks are all about protecting brand names, logos, and slogans – basically, anything that helps consumers recognize a product or service.
Mistt’s claims frequently confused copyright with trademark law. Copyright infringement occurs when someone uses your creative work without your permission. This could involve music, videos, writings, or even designs. Now, you need to understand that copyright and trademark laws are not the same. While trademarks protect brand names, copyright focuses on creative works.
This confusion undermines the credibility of her claims. Trademark attorneys immediately recognized these fundamental errors when evaluating her story.
Why the Story Went Viral
People love David vs. Goliath stories, and the idea that a TikTok creator accidentally took down a billion-dollar soda brand was simply too good to resist. Combine that with real elements (a creator named Cierra Mistt and a real cease and desist letter), and the myth almost writes itself.
The narrative had everything social media loves: corporate intimidation, an underdog victory, perfect timing with the Starry launch, and an influencer standing up to a giant corporation. The fact that key elements were real (Mistt’s online name, PepsiCo’s rebrand, the phonetic similarity) made the fabricated connections seem plausible.
While the story has taken off on TikTok and sparked viral interest, some believe it might just be a publicity stunt—possibly by Cierra Mistt herself to gain attention or as a marketing ploy. Whether intentional misinformation or genuine misunderstanding, the controversy significantly boosted Mistt’s follower count and engagement.
Lessons for Influencers and Businesses
The Sierra Mist controversy offers critical lessons about trademark protection in the influencer age. Influencers and individuals building a personal brand should conduct thorough trademark searches to identify potential conflicts with established brands. Legal advice can help determine whether a chosen name might infringe upon existing trademarks.
For businesses, the Sierra Mist controversy serves as a valuable lesson in trademark maintenance and intellectual property protection: Monitor and Renew Your Trademarks – Regularly check your trademark’s status to prevent accidental lapses.
The case also demonstrates how quickly misinformation spreads on social media, particularly when it involves compelling narratives about corporate overreach.
How to Verify Trademark Claims
USPTO.gov and an IP attorney are the best resources for verifying trademark registrations. NameStormers can also help with preliminary trademark screening and provide a risk assessment. The viral misinformation surrounding this case underscores the importance of fact-checking legal claims before assuming their accuracy.
Anyone can search USPTO databases to verify trademark ownership, renewal status, and legal proceedings. This transparency makes false claims about trademark lapses easy to disprove—if people take the time to check.
What This Means for Social Media and Legal Claims
Currently, legal outlets such as Stemer Law and Tech & Media Law report that no lawsuit has been publicly filed, and USPTO records continue to show active registration for Sierra Mist. This silence has left room for speculation.
PepsiCo’s decision not to publicly address Mistt’s claims likely reflects standard corporate policy: don’t amplify false narratives by responding to them. However, this silence allowed misinformation to flourish unchallenged on social media.
The controversy demonstrates how legal-sounding claims can gain credibility through repetition, even without supporting evidence. Millions of people now believe an influencer forced PepsiCo to rebrand Sierra Mist—despite zero evidence supporting this narrative.
The Bottom Line
The Sierra Mist “lawsuit” never happened. No court case was filed, no trademark rights changed hands, and PepsiCo’s rebrand to Starry was a strategic business decision unrelated to any influencer controversy.
If PepsiCo had actually lost a trademark case involving the name, that would be a matter of public record. It’s not.
While Cierra Mistt may have received a cease-and-desist letter, this routine trademark enforcement action doesn’t constitute a lawsuit, legal victory, or settlement. The viral story represents either deliberate misinformation or a fundamental misunderstanding of intellectual property law—amplified by social media’s appetite for dramatic narratives.
The Sierra Mist name change was not the result of a trademark dispute, but rather a strategic rebrand by PepsiCo, who still owns valid registrations for the original name. The lesson here? Always check the trademark record before you believe the viral version of events.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Sierra Mist Lawsuit
Is there a real Sierra Mist lawsuit against PepsiCo?
No. Despite viral TikTok claims, no lawsuit was ever filed between Cierra Mistt and PepsiCo. No court records, settlement agreements, or USPTO proceedings exist documenting any legal case.
Did PepsiCo lose Sierra Mist trademark rights?
No. PepsiCo still owns active federal trademark registrations for Sierra Mist, as confirmed by USPTO database searches. Trademark rights don’t automatically expire when products are discontinued.
Why did PepsiCo change Sierra Mist to Starry?
Sierra Mist held less than 1% market share after 24 years of struggling against Sprite. PepsiCo rebranded to Starry as a strategic business decision to attract Gen Z consumers with updated flavors and marketing—unrelated to any trademark dispute.
What is a cease-and-desist letter?
A cease-and-desist letter is a formal warning requesting someone stop allegedly infringing behavior before legal action. Receiving one doesn’t mean the sender lost a legal case—it’s routine trademark enforcement.
Can influencers claim corporate trademarks if registrations lapse?
Even if trademark registration expires, companies retain common law rights based on continuous commercial use. Although a trademark registration can indeed lapse, it doesn’t mean the original owner loses all rights to the name. A brand can retain certain protections under common law even without active registration.
How can I verify trademark ownership claims?
Visit USPTO.gov to search federal trademark registrations. All ownership records, renewal dates, and legal proceedings are publicly accessible. Consult trademark attorneys for complex situations.
Did Cierra Mistt purchase Sierra Mist trademark rights?
No evidence exists in USPTO records showing any trademark transfer from PepsiCo to Cierra Mistt. Such transactions would be publicly documented if they occurred.
Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult an attorney specializing in intellectual property law or visit USPTO.gov for legal guidance regarding trademark disputes and ownership verification.
For more information about consumer protection lawsuits, trademark disputes, and class action litigation, visit AllAboutLawyer.com.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah