10PM: Soda shop suing competitor over the use of the word 'dirty'

This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.

SALT LAKE CITY — Soda shops are big business in Utah, and Swig is one of them. One of its competitors is Sodalicious. Both have locations throughout Utah and both offer thousands of drink combinations. However, it's the use of one word on both their menus that's stirring up some controversy.

At the Sodalicious in Provo, co-owner Annie Auernig is busy mixing drinks and helping customers.

"It's fun," said Auernig. "It could be a lot worse."

Photo: KSL-TV

She and her husband and a couple of business partners opened their first store in 2013. It's been so successful, they're planning to open their sixth location soon.

Their menu includes drink names like, Your Mom or Civil Marriage, and you can get both of those "extra dirty" meaning a shot of half-and-half is added.

"We believe what differentiates us from our competitors is the experience they're having here," Auernig said.

But for Swig the experience isn't the problem. It's the use of the word "dirty" that's left a bad taste in the owners' mouths.

"Dirty always means coconut to us," Nicole Tanner, owner of Swig said.

The first store opened in St. George in 2010, and now there are nine locations throughout the state.

In 2013, Swig trademarked the word "dirty" in association with any fountain drinks.

"We asked (Sodalicious) nicely if they could remove the word dirty from their menu board and they refused," Tanner said. "What do you at that point?"

In April, Swig filed a lawsuit.

We welcome the competition, they just can't use our brand and our names. –Nicole Tanner, owner of Swig

"We welcome the competition," Tanner said. "They just can't use our brand and our names."

Auernig declined to talk about the details of the lawsuit.

"We're going to allow the facts to play out with our attorneys in the way that it should," Auernig said. "We're just going to focus on our customers and the growth of our business."

Both sides admit they don't want to have conflict regarding the businesses they love so much.

"It was never our intention to do anything wrong, to fight or have any kind of conflict," Auernig said.

Tanner just wants to protect the brand.

"We don't want this to be a war," Tanner said. "We never wanted it to be a war. It's a little frustrating for sure, but competition is good for anybody. It just helps us to try and do things better."

The lawsuit is moving forward. Swig representatives say Sodalicious filed a motion to dismiss the suit, but it was declined. They have since asked for a more definitive statement that is currently before a judge.

×

Photos