What happens when a viral TikTok creator and one of the world’s largest beverage companies share nearly the same name? That question sparked intense debate in early 2024 after influencer Cierra Mistt accused PepsiCo, the maker of Sierra Mist, of trademark infringement.

The controversy began soon after PepsiCo rebranded its long-standing lemon-lime soda to Starry, ending a two-decade legacy of the “Sierra Mist” name. Around the same time, fans discovered that a popular social media personality, Cierra Mistt, had been building her brand for years—posting flight attendant stories and lifestyle content to millions of followers.

The question of who truly owns the “Mist/Mistt” term and what happens when businesses and influencers clash online continues to garner attention in 2025 among trademark experts, producers, and fans.

This article explains the full story of Cierra Mistt lawsuit: the legal facts, the trademark background, PepsiCo’s corporate decisions, and what this dispute reveals about intellectual-property rights in the creator economy.

What Is the Cierra Mist Lawsuit

In the Cierra Mist lawsuit, Cierra Mist, a popular TikTok creator, alleges that PepsiCo sent her a cease-and-desist letter because her name and their old soft drink, Sierra Mist, are identical.

She filed for ownership after her legal team looked into it and found that PepsiCo’s trademark had expired. This raised important questions: Did PepsiCo rename Sierra Mist to Starry to cover up a legal error?

Who Is Cierra Mistt and Why Her Name Matters in the Lawsuit

American digital creator Cierra Mistt became well-known for her candid TikTok videos on travel advice, pop culture critique, and life as a flight attendant. She began posting on TikTok in 2020 and quickly amassed a massive fan following. She has more than 420,000 Instagram followers and more than 3.3 million TikTok followers as of October 2025. Her movies often feature travelogues, lifestyle advice, and humorous criticism of business culture.

Long before the soda controversy, her distinctive name—spelled “Cierra Mistt” with two Ts—became her own brand identity. She used it across platforms, merchandise, and digital appearances. The double T stylization distinguishes her from “Sierra Mist,” PepsiCo’s discontinued lemon-lime beverage that Starry replaced in early 2023.

When followers saw that the brand name and the creator’s name sounded similar, online mistrust grew. Viewers argued over whether PepsiCo’s rebranding was a response to a potential naming issue or a calculated shift in product advertising.

Cierra Mistt’s name is not yet registered as a federal trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), trademark experts further explained. However, because she regularly uses the name in public for business and entertainment, she could have common-law trademark rights. That difference—between federal registration and common-law protection—is at the heart of the ongoing debate about her claim.

Today, the “Cierra Mistt vs PepsiCo” story symbolizes how digital creators face real legal complexities when their online identity intersects with major corporations. Her case highlights why influencers are urged to trademark their personal names early to avoid ownership disputes as their popularity grows.

Why PepsiCo Rebranded Sierra Mist to Starry — and How It Sparked the Legal Debate

In January 2023, PepsiCo officially discontinued Sierra Mist after more than 20 years. It was replaced by Starry, a new lemon-lime soda marketed as a modern, Gen-Z-focused facelift for a fading product line.

Starry was developed to “deliver a crisp, refreshing flavor with vibrant branding that speaks to the next generation,” according to a 2023 PepsiCo news release. Internally, the decision aligned with a broader corporate trend toward young, digital-first marketing campaigns that pose a direct threat to Coca-Cola’s long-standing category leader, Sprite.

What the company did not expect was the public confusion that followed. As Starry launched, social-media users noticed the similarity between “Sierra Mist”—the retired brand—and “Cierra Mistt”, the influencer who had already built a significant online following. Some assumed PepsiCo had taken legal action against her, while others speculated that the company dropped “Sierra Mist” due to potential trademark conflict.

Industry analysts later clarified that PepsiCo’s “Sierra Mist” trademark had been maintained for years, but the company gradually stopped renewing certain product-related registrations as Starry replaced the old brand. The USPTO database shows that several Sierra Mist filings were marked as “dead” or “abandoned” by 2024. However, PepsiCo still controls related intellectual-property assets tied to product packaging and brand imagery.

This overlap—between an influencer’s stage name and an aging corporate mark—became a case study in modern trademark tension. Legal experts point out that PepsiCo was within its rights to rebrand voluntarily, yet public perception linked the decision to the viral creator. That perception created a legal-public-relations storm that neither side fully anticipated.

By 2025, the story continues to circulate in digital law discussions. Marketing professionals now cite Starry’s rollout as proof that brand transitions can ignite unforeseen trademark conversations in the creator era, where every name can carry both cultural and legal weight.

The Legal Basis of the Cierra Mistt vs PepsiCo Case — What Trademark Law Actually Says

The heart of the Cierra Mistt vs. PepsiCo dispute lies in the distinction between federal and common law trademark protection. While PepsiCo owns long-standing registrations for “Sierra Mist,” most of those filings were tied to packaging, slogans, and distribution marks. By 2024, several of these were listed as “dead” or “abandoned” in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database.

On the other side, Cierra Mistt uses her name as a commercial identity for influencer marketing, entertainment, and merchandise. Her regular public use of that name may provide her common-law rights even though she hasn’t registered a federal trademark under that name. When someone uses a unique name or emblem in commerce, they instantly acquire these rights under trademark law.

Common-law protection can be strong yet constrained, according to legal experts. It applies only within the geographic areas or industries where the mark is recognized. In this case, PepsiCo operates in the beverage industry, while Cierra Mistt works in digital media and content creation. That industry gap makes direct confusion between the two names unlikely, yet not impossible.

If PepsiCo had actively enforced its mark against the influencer, courts would examine:

• Whether consumers could reasonably confuse her content with the company’s product
• Whether her use diluted PepsiCo’s brand or caused reputational harm
• Whether her mark created a false association with an existing product line

So far, there is no verified public record of a lawsuit filed by PepsiCo or Cierra Mistt. The majority of the discussion remains conjectural, driven by unauthorized opinions and viral posts. But the case highlights a crucial fact: influencers now face the same intellectual property risks as businesses.

Before developing profitable businesses, trademark lawyers now advise artists to register their stage names as soon as possible and do USPTO searches. A simple filing can prevent disputes like this and protect online identities from corporate overlap.

What Could Happen Next — Legal, Corporate, and Public Outcomes in 2025

As of late 2025, no formal lawsuit between Cierra Mistt and PepsiCo has appeared in federal or state court databases. The matter remains a public trademark debate, not an active legal case. However, depending on further filings, discussions, or public relations tactics, several outcomes might still materialize.

1. A licensing or private settlement agreement

Both parties may seek a secret agreement to avoid lengthy publicity. PepsiCo may acknowledge Cierra Mistt’s use of her name for entertainment while retaining control over its retired “Sierra Mist” trademarks. In return, Cierra Mistt could agree not to market beverage-related products using the “Mistt” mark. This approach would prevent confusion and protect both reputations.

2. A Formal Trademark Filing by Cierra Mistt

Legal experts believe Cierra Mistt’s strongest next step would be to register her name federally in the “entertainment services” category. Doing so would formalize her ownership rights and limit future disputes. If she files in 2025, her mark would likely coexist peacefully with PepsiCo’s beverage-class trademarks because the industries differ.

3. Brand-Management Impact on PepsiCo

From a corporate perspective, the Sierra Mist rebrand to Starry continues to perform modestly. Market-share reports from early 2025 show Starry holding a 6.7 percent slice of the U.S. lemon-lime soda segment, still trailing Sprite’s dominant 62 percent share. PepsiCo has shifted focus toward digital advertising and celebrity collaborations, minimizing references to the discontinued Sierra Mist brand to avoid renewed confusion.

4. Broader Implications for Creators and Corporations

This story has become a teaching example in digital law courses and marketing conferences. It demonstrates how naming conflicts can emerge across unrelated industries as social media visibility grows. Experts warn that although creators need to protect their personal brands early through registration and legal assistance, companies should conduct routine audits of inactive trademarks.

In 2025, the Cierra Mistt controversy serves more as a cultural lesson about digital identity, ownership, and the relationship between the law and viral popularity than it does as a legal dispute.

Why This Story Matters — Lessons for Creators, Brands, and Digital Law in 2025

The Cierra Mistt and PepsiCo situation may seem like a viral internet story. Still, it highlights a real and growing issue in the creator economy: ownership of brand identity in the digital age.

1. For Creators: Trademark Protection Is No Longer Optional

Influencers often underestimate how quickly a personal name can become a brand. Once a handle or persona attracts sponsorships, products, or followers, it becomes a commercial asset—and that asset needs protection.
Legal experts now recommend that creators:

• File for federal trademark registration as soon as they monetize their content.
• Search the USPTO database before adopting a brand or handle.
• Consult an intellectual-property attorney for proper class selection and protection scope.

Doing so helps prevent disputes like this one, where visibility grows faster than legal readiness.

2. For Corporations: Dormant Trademarks Can Spark Modern Conflicts

Large companies, especially those with long product histories, must maintain oversight of expired or abandoned trademarks. A forgotten mark can reappear unexpectedly through social media visibility or creator branding, reigniting public associations long after a product’s retirement.
The PepsiCo case shows how easily brand nostalgia and creator culture can intersect — and how critical clear communication and proactive registration management have become.

3. For Audiences and Legal Observers: Law Is Adapting to Culture

The Cierra Mistt debate reflects how intellectual property law is catching up to online behavior. Social media platforms make it challenging to differentiate between company branding, content production, and personal identification. More lawsuits involving influencer names, popular slogans, and usernames than ever before are being reviewed by trademark authorities and courts in 2025.

It’s an indication that marketing, law, and culture now operate in the same digital realm, and that both businesses and creatives need to be cautious as they navigate it.

In the end, this story serves as a reminder to everyone that names are valuable. A name may establish careers, unite millions of admirers, or symbolize decades of company history. In addition to being required by law, protecting it is also essential for business.

FAQs

Why did Sierra Mist drop the lawsuit?

A lawsuit did not cause Sierra Mist to be discontinued. To introduce Starry, a new lemon-lime soda targeted at younger customers, PepsiCo discontinued the brand in 2023.

Did Sierra Mist lose its copyright?

No, Sierra Mist did not lose copyright; after discontinuing the brand, PepsiCo let some of its trademark registrations expire.

For what reason did Sierra Mist adopt the name Starry?

Not because of a legal dispute, PepsiCo changed Sierra Mist’s name to Starry to modernize its brand, increase sales, and more effectively compete with Sprite.

Who owns Cierra Mist?

Cierra Mistt is a social media creator who uses her name independently; it is not connected to or controlled by PepsiCo.

Disclaimer: This article provides a general overview of the Cierra Mist Lawsuit, based on publicly available information, and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.