Rival slams Kendall Jenner’s ‘half a**’ Tequila amid copyright battle

Nick Mazorkis, CEO of 512 Tequila, has slammed Kendall Jenner’s entry into the spirits market in a new interview, during which he confirmed his company is pushing ahead with a copyright battle after a lawsuit was filed last month. 

Kendall Jenner’s 818 Tequila launched to considerable success last year, but the brand and its famous owner have not been without their fair share of controversies during its short life thus far.

And last month, we reported the news that Jenner’s 818 Tequila was being sued for trademark infringement, false destination of origin and unfair competition, by rival company 512 Tequila, which claimed 818 had “blatantly” copied its branding.

Now, in an interview given to The Sun, 512 Tequila’s CEO Nick Mazorkis has revealed that he intends to press ahead with the lawsuit, lashing out at Kendall Jenner’s entry into the Tequila market in the process.

“They played us for fools. They’re fumbling their way into the Tequila industry half a**” he told the newspaper.

As we reported, the lawsuit claims that 512 Tequila uses an “immediately recognizable 512 mark in black lettering inside a vertical yellow rectangle.” The brand’s trademark was established in 2015.

Mazorkis told The Sun that Kendall Jenner “cannot get away with it” and he’s willing to battle it out for “months or years” if necessary.

Last year, the model sparked backlash due to her appearance in an 818 Tequila advertising campaign, which showed the model leading a horse through an agave field while wearing traditional Mexican dress and with her hair braided.

However, 818 Tequila launched to remarkable success in the US, reportedly selling out just four hours after it was made available.

“Kendall became an overnight tequila mogul,” one insider told celebrity news outlet Page Six. “Retailer and distributor chatter is this is the best spirits brand launch they’ve ever seen in this price range”.

A representative for 818 Tequila told db: “818 does not believe there is any merit to these claims. We cannot otherwise comment on the matter.”