## Facts

- Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Pittsburgh, Inc. (Pepsi) and Bottling Group, LLC (BGL) had prior litigation that ended in a settlement agreement.
- For years, BGL used pallets and shells bearing the word “Pepsi” in connection with transporting and selling products that were not Pepsi products.
- The settlement agreement barred BGL from using pallets and shells with the word “Pepsi” on them for that purpose.
- Pepsi alleged that, despite the settlement, BGL continued to use Pepsi-marked pallets and shells while handling non-Pepsi products.
- Pepsi contended that this conduct harmed Pepsi’s goodwill, its ability to control the use of its brand name, and the integrity of its franchise system.
- Pepsi moved in federal district court for a preliminary injunction seeking specific performance of the settlement agreement (i.e., an order compelling BGL to comply with the settlement’s restrictions).

## Issues

1. Should the court grant Pepsi a preliminary injunction ordering specific performance of the settlement agreement that barred BGL from using Pepsi-marked pallets and shells to transport and sell non-Pepsi products?
2. Did Pepsi make the showing required for preliminary injunctive relief—particularly likelihood of success and irreparable harm—based on alleged brand and goodwill injury from continued use of Pepsi-marked transport items?

## Decision

- The district court ruled on Pepsi’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking specific performance of the settlement agreement.
- The court evaluated the request under the governing preliminary-injunction framework, including whether Pepsi showed a sufficient likelihood of success on enforcing the settlement terms and whether the alleged injury was irreparable rather than compensable by money damages.
- The court treated the settlement agreement as an enforceable contract for purposes of determining whether injunctive relief compelling compliance was an available remedy in the circumstances presented.

## Legal Principles

- Settlement agreements are enforceable contracts; courts interpret and enforce them under ordinary contract principles.
- Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy; the moving party must satisfy the applicable multi-factor test (commonly including likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and the public interest).
- Specific performance is an equitable remedy that may be used to enforce a contract obligation when legal remedies are inadequate and the contractual duty is sufficiently definite to be judicially enforced.
- Alleged injury to goodwill and loss of control over the use of a brand name may support an irreparable-harm argument when such injury cannot be readily measured or repaired through an award of damages.

## Conclusion

*Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Bottling Group, LLC* concerns Pepsi’s effort to enforce a prior settlement agreement through a preliminary injunction compelling BGL to stop using Pepsi-marked pallets and shells in connection with non-Pepsi products; the district court addressed whether equitable relief in the form of specific performance was warranted under the preliminary-injunction standard in light of alleged harm to Pepsi’s goodwill and brand control.


Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Bottling Group, LLC, 2009 WL 873020 (2009)