February 12th, 2026
When national advertisers shell out $8 million for thirty seconds of Super Bowl airtime, every frame, every creative choice matters. These aren't mere commercials; they're cultural moments that can live far beyond game day. 72SOLD has been an Arizona Super Bowl sponsor for years, once winning “Arizona’s Best” of the big game. If you didn’t see our Astro72 spaceship puppy ad this year, check it out on the home page at 72SOLD.com.
While we were reaching for the stars with our AI dog in a spaceship, Pepsi went hunting in the Arctic and brazenly borrowed Coca-Cola's most beloved mascot to do it.
Coke’s Polar Bear Prefers Pepsi
Pepsi's 2026 Super Bowl spot The Choice features a CGI polar bear that looks suspiciously like Coke's iconic character, conducting a blind taste test between Pepsi Zero Sugar and Coke Zero Sugar. The bear, naturally, chooses Pepsi. Commentators immediately recognized the stunt: Pepsi had hijacked Coke's polar bear, revived the Pepsi Challenge, and dared the Atlanta giant to do something about it.
Is Coke’s Polar Bear Protected?
The legal landscape here is fascinatingly murky. Coca-Cola's polar bears aren't just cute advertising props, they may also be legally protected brand mascots under trademark and trade dress law, much like the Geico gecko or the Michelin Man. Courts have recognized that distinctive characters associated with a single brand deserve protection. If Pepsi's bear is deemed too similar in look and feel, Coke could cry foul on several grounds: trademark infringement, dilution of a famous mark, even false advertising if the taste-test claims aren't properly substantiated.
Parody, Comparison… or Guilty
as Charged?
U.S. law explicitly permits comparative advertising with a competitor's brand as long as what you say is truthful and doesn't imply a competitor’s permission or endorsement. Parody law offers additional protection: you may borrow just enough of the original to be recognizable without literally copying it. The line exists, but it's drawn in shifting snow.
Here's where my dual background as both attorney and marketer leads me to a provocative conclusion: Pepsi may be counting on a lawsuit.
A Legal Battle Enhances Pepsi’s Campaign
A legal battle with Coca-Cola would generate millions of dollars in free publicity; national news coverage, social media firestorms, talk-show debates. Every headline would remind consumers of Pepsi's audacious taste-test challenge. The controversy itself becomes the campaign.
Coke: Stodgy. Pepsi: Cool
Even more brilliantly, the lawsuit narrative positions the brands exactly where Pepsi wants them: Pepsi as the bold, irreverent disruptor; Coca-Cola as the stodgy incumbent wielding lawyers instead of innovation. In a culture that mocks corporate stuffiness, who wins the public relations war? The scrappy challenger thumbing its nose at tradition, or the legacy brand clutching its legal pearls over a cartoon bear?
Publicity Juggernaut
This is marketing judo at its finest, using your opponent's strength against them. If Coke stays silent, Pepsi's stunt succeeds unchallenged. If Coke sues, Pepsi transforms a single commercial into a multi-year publicity juggernaut, all while painting itself as the hip, edgy choice and Coke as yesterday's news.
Brand Positioning Coup
The genius, and the gamble, lies in walking that legal tightrope. Pepsi's lawyers undoubtedly vetted every frame, arming themselves with comparative-advertising and parody defenses to ensure that a Coke initiated lawsuit would not be a slam-dunk and would likely endure for years. Pepsi may have figured out how to turn a Super Bowl commercial and a potential lawsuit into the ultimate brand-positioning coup.
My take? The best legal defense isn't always based on the probability of victory in court. Sometimes, the big win is that the whole world will be watching the fight.
