monster energy – Techdirt (original) (raw)
Stories about: "monster energy"
Monster Energy Bullies Trademark Application For Gin Company
from the monster-mash dept
Here we go again. Monster Energy is one of the most prolific trademark bullies in the history of trademark bullying. And the really frustrating part of all this is that at times it can feel like Monster makes trademark bullying a chief international export every bit as much as energy drinks. No trademark concern is too small and no industry too disparate to warrant intervention by whatever crack legal team Monster Energy is employing at the time.
Which brings us to New Zealand. That’s where one of Monster’s brands, an energy drink labled simply “Mother Energy Drink”, is sold. Also in New Zealand is a gin company called “Mothers Ruined”, which applied for a trademark on the business name in 2022 but found themselves facing an objection to the mark by Monster. Fortunately, the folks behind Mothers Ruined appear to have the appetite to fight the bully.
Mothers Ruined co-owners Jo Davy and Helen Gower lodged the application for the name in January 2022, but were shocked when months later the Intellectual Property Office notified them of the objection.
But, with the help of a lawyer taking the case pro bono, the pair decided to fight it.
“It feels fundamental to us that the word mother should not be contestable in a legal sense,” Davy said.
“We know the company has contested other companies as well with a similar name, so we want to stand up and say ‘no, it’s not fair’,” Gower said.
With the help of an attorney, the pair are taking this up at a hearing with the Intellectual Property Office. The pair’s attorney sounds confident and is saying all the right things.
Intellectual property lawyer Kate Duckworth, who is representing Davy and Gower, said she was confident the case would go their way.
“One of the elements for a trademark case to be successful is there has to be deception and confusion,” Duckworth said. “I don’t believe Mothers Ruined is a threat to the energy drink business, as they are not competing products.”
Damned right, they aren’t. We’re talking about energy drinks and freaking gin, and those aren’t remotely in the same categories. I’ve also reviewed the branding for both products and there is zero chance of confusion, even for a hurried idiot already full of gin.
No, this is Monster doing it’s routine, bullying every chance it gets with reckless abandon. Hopefully the IPO recognizes that.
Filed Under: mother energy drink, mothers ruined, new zealand, trademark, trademark bullies
Companies: monster energy, mothers ruined
Monster Energy Opposes A Fitness Trainer’s Trademark Because Of Course It Did
from the monster-flex dept
Ah, Monster Energy. For regular readers of Techdirt, the name of the company alone is enough to get your eyes rolling harder than a teenager at a rave. Posts on the company’s trademark bullying ways are so legion that I dare not even begin listing them; if you’re unfamiliar with them, click the link and be sure you have a pillow on your desk or you’re going to suffer a concussion.
Well, Monster is back at it again, this time opposing the trademark application for Monster Squad Del Mar, a fitness training company out of California.
A Del Mar personal trainer has been forced to go up against an energy drink giant. When filing for a registered trademark, Monster Squad Del Mar was stopped by Monster Energy.
“I’m not advertising their drinks. No logos, my logo looks nothing like theirs,” said Herman Jones, owner of Monster Squad Del Mar mobile training.
Frankly, it’s pretty hard to argue with him on the question of the logos.
That simply does not call to mind the Monster Energy logo. No claw marks. Boxing has nothing to do with Monster Energy. The only thing that might even give me a moment’s pause is the use of the green coloration, but that just isn’t enough to constitute trademark infringement.
Which leaves us with the name of the training company itself: Monster Squad Del Mar. Except, of course, that trademark infringement requires there to be public confusion as well as for the two entities to operate within the same marketplace. Unless Monster Energy recently got into the personal fitness business, this ain’t it. But, as is our mantra, trademark bullying occurs because it works, particularly when we’re talking about a big entity bullying a much smaller one.
“This is a big, big company look how much money they got. They got money to get you caught up in court and you won’t be able to pay your fees and you’ll lose any and everything that you have,” Jones said.
Fortunately for Jones, he has found a lawyer that is willing to take the case on pro bono. Not everyone is so lucky. I expect Monster to lose in its opposition, but that won’t change the larger problem: Monster Energy waltzing into disparate marketplaces and lobbing out trademark bombs indiscriminately.
Filed Under: energy drinks, fitness, likelihood of confusion, monster, trademark
Companies: monster energy, monster squad del mar
Monster Energy Suing A Fishing Gear Company Claiming Customer Confusion
from the monster-mash dept
Normally when discussing a company that has appeared on our pages before for being a trademark bully, I like to list off and link to a few examples. Monster Energy, the company that makes fizzy caffeine bombs in liquid form, makes that all very silly. You need only look at all the stories we’ve done on the company to see why: there are simply too many of them from which to choose. I could be convinced that the company was, in fact, doing some kind of avant-garde art piece highlighting the horrors of the trademark bully were I not so well informed of Monster’s ridiculous behavior overall.
And here we are again. Monster Energy has sued Slimecat Rods, a fishing gear company, for trademark infringement among other things. Why? Well, some of the gear is branded as “monster” gear.
The defendants are allegedly involved in the manufacturing, design, and marketing of fishing gear. The plaintiff contends that their products use trademarks and trade dress that are similar to that of Monster in a way that may confuse consumers. The stylization and color scheme of the defendant’s logo purportedly creates a “strikingly similar commercial impression” to Monster’s.
Since the defendants allegedly market their products to a similar audience as the plaintiffs, Monster states that they are likely causing “confusion, mistake, and deception among the relevant consuming public.” Monster believes that if the misconduct continues, they will experience damage and irreparable harm to their reputation.
There are two items we have to tackle here: similarity of the trade dress and the whole “similar audience” claim. On the topic of similarity of the marks, Monster Energy does what it always does in these suits and spends several pages listing out all of its marks on the word “monster” and embedding a buttload of pictures showing those marks in commerce. Then, as is again typical, it shows the “infringing” marks to show how similar they are. For instance:
Confused? Me too! That looks nothing like the overall Monster Energy branding. Nothing in there would leave anyone looking to snag some fish confused. Slimecat’s name is prominent on the branding. It’s all very distinct. But Monster’s suit calls this use “confusingly similar”. If that doesn’t strike you as absurd, the problem lies with you.
Not content with making such silly claims, Monster goes on to note that both companies use green and black coloration in their branding, before doing a laughably deep dive into how similar some of the letters are in font.
Again, if you think those are wildly similar in terms of how different a font can be, you’re the problem, not Slimecat.
But wait, I can hear you saying, Monster makes drinks and apparel, not fish gear. These aren’t in the same market, therefore trademark shouldn’t really apply. Well, Monster’s response to that is that they sponsor fishing and outdoors events. Yes, seriously.
Since 2019, Monster has also been the official and exclusive energy drink sponsor of the American Bass Anglers, Inc. (ABA) tournament trail, and has been showcased at ABA Open Series. Each ABA Open Series division offers four one-day qualifying events in a boater/co-angler format. Monster was also featured as a sponsor in the Ultimate Bass Team Tour, including its Tournament of Champions on Lake Mohave. Photographic examples from those events are shown below.
But that isn’t the same thing as using the marks in commerce directly by providing a product or service in a certain category. KIA isn’t suddenly in the basketball business because it sponsors the NBA. I have seen this tactic attempted by other companies in the past and can’t recall it ever working.
And, when you put that alongside the spurious nature of the rest of Monster’s claims, this all comes across as bullying at best, or very stupid at worst. So, you know, pretty much par for the course for Monster Energy.
Filed Under: energy drinks, fishing, trademark, trademark bullying
Companies: monster energy, slimecat rods
Monster Energy Buys A Brewery; Trademark Lawsuits Are Almost Sure To Follow
from the oh...oh-no dept
Did you all just hear that? That tiny, nearly silent series of screams you hear all around you? Well, that was the entire craft beer industry crying out in fear and pain. Why? Well, because Monster Beverage Corp announced that it is going to be a brewery.
Energy drinks maker Monster Beverage Corp (MNST.O) said on Thursday it had agreed to buy craft beer and hard seltzer maker CANarchy Craft Brewery Collective Llc for $330 million in cash, marking its entry into the alcoholic drinks market.
Monster said the deal would add alcoholic brands Cigar City, Oskar Blues, Deep Ellum, Perrin Brewing, Squatters and Wasatch brands to its beverage portfolio and not include CANarchy’s restaurants.
If you’re in the craft brewing industry and you’re not dismayed at this news, then you don’t know Monster Energy. This is the company that has taken trademark policing to caricature levels. If you need examples of this, they are legion. Monster Energy went after an autobody shop for using the letter M and the color green in its branding. Monster Energy opposed a teen’s trademark application despite the branding being totally dissimilar. Monster Energy opposed the trademark for a pizza chain because it named itself Monsta Pizza. And on and on and on.
So why should this concern the brewing industries? Well, for starters, Monster Energy has attempted in the past to oppose and threaten liquor companies for the crime of having an “M” in their branding. Here is one brief snippet I wrote at the time in that post about Monster opposing a trademark application for Murlarkey Distillery:
To start, the two companies operate in different markets. Yes, both serve liquid for consumption, but one makes an energy drink, while the other is selling liquor, such as vodka. Those are distinct markets and not easily confused during the purchasing process.
With this acquisition, the above statement goes away in many respects. Suddenly, Monster is in the alcohol business. This lends weight to its ability to argue even more than it did before that there might be brand confusion in its attacks, even if those attacks remain frivolous. But even putting the Monster brand aside, take the brands in the acquisition itself. What does it mean, given that Monster now owns Oskar Blues Brewery, for Oscar’s Brewing Company? Or any of the several different brews that are branded with the word “Oscar”?
And that’s just taking one of the brands and taking the most obvious guesses as to where Monster Energy could get aggressive. As readers here will know, Monster goes well beyond the obvious targets and gets really, absurdly creative for who it thinks is infringing on its trademarks.
It’s not a sure thing that this acquisition is going to be a nightmare for the craft brewing industry, but all of Monster’s history of aggression sure points us in that direction.
Filed Under: brewery, craft beer, monster, trademark, trademark bullying, trademark threats
Companies: monster energy
Monster Energy Goes After Autobody Shop Because Of It's 'M' Logo And Use Of Green Color
from the monster-mash dept
For regular readers of Techdirt, Monster Energy is one of those companies that need only appear in the headline of a post before the reader knows that said post will be about some ridiculous trademark bullying Monster is doing. The company has a reputation for being about as belligerent on trademark matters as it could possibly be, lobbing lawsuits and trademark oppositions as though the company lawyers had literally nothing else to do with their time. And, while many, many, many of these bullying attempts fail when the merits are considered, the fact is that the bullying still often succeeds in its goal to use the massive Monster Energy coffers to bully victims into either submission or corporate death.
The really frustrating part in all of this is how often Monster Energy attempts to trademark bully companies that aren’t remotely competing in their market. One recent example of this is Monster going after MPT Autobody in South Carolina. For disclosure, one of the founders of MPT reached out to me personally to inform me of exactly what was going on. Based on our conversation and what I can see in public records, the order of events appears to go something like this:
- MPT Autobody submits an application to trademark its name and branding (pictures will be below)
- Monster Energy opposes the application, citing that MPT’s branding in part includes a stylized “M” and the color “green” and will therefore confuse the public into thinking it’s associated with Monster Energy
- After consulting with a lawyer, MPT Autobody drops the application, intending to simply do business without the trademark
- Despite that, Monster Energy then sends a C&D notice, arguing that the continued use of “M”s and “green” constitutes copyright infringement, along with a demand that MPT pay Monster Energy’s attorney’s fees
I have embedded the entire C&D notice below so you can go see the details for yourself. That said, let’s start with a couple of facts at the top of all of this. Monster Energy does not have the right to block other companies from using the letter “M” in their branding. Monster Energy also does not have the right to block other companies from using the colors green or black in their branding. Monster Energy also generally does not have the right to block other companies from using green or black “M”s in their branding.
And, yet, simply because Monster Energy sponsors some auto race activities, its letter claims exactly that and, as a result, it includes in its letter the following pictures as to what will confuse the public.
Now, if any of that branding out in the wild brings to mind Monster Energy, you need help. And keep in mind that for all of Monster Energy’s reference to its sponsorship of trucks and cars, it is not in the autobody industry. Given that, there is a hell of a high bar to climb to prove that any of this is infringement.
All of which may end up being besides the point. MPT is going to have hefty bills on its hands if it wants to fight this out, even as it seems to be trying to play nicely with Monster Energy as much as it can. For instance, the company’s site now has a disclaimer on it, noting that they are not affiliated with Monster Energy. The company is also looking into the potential of using a different shade of green on branding, though it’s anyone’s guess if that would satisfy Monster Energy. The trademark app has been withdrawn.
But trademark bullies are never satisfied with that sort of thing. Instead, they want to grind their victims into the ground. Here’s hoping that doesn’t end up being the case with MPT Autobody.
Filed Under: monster, trademark, trademark bullies
Companies: monster energy, mpt autobody
Ubisoft Bows To Monster Energy To Rename An Upcoming Game Horribly
from the scared-of-the-monster dept
Veteran Techdirt readers will have been so tempered by stories about Monster Energy playing the trademark bully at this point that the mere mention of the company should cause them to roll their eyes. Still, the history of what we’ve covered in the Monster’s attempt to win the trademark-protectionist championship are still constructive in one very important way: Monster Energy regularly loses these disputes. That in itself shouldn’t be terribly surprising; the company’s decisions on just how often to enforce the trademark rights it has are often so absurd that it would be a shock if it put together any sort of real winning streak. But what is surprising is when victims of Monster’s bullying choose to actually concede to the bullying, given that losing track record.
But it happens, even when the victim is a large enough entity that it could fight if it wanted to. A recent example of this is how Ubisoft changed the name of an upcoming video game after Monster Energy opposed its trademark application for it.
Ubisoft’s Gods & Monsters recently underwent some rebranding, switching its name to the demonstrably-worse Immortals Fenyx Rising a few weeks ago. It has gone over like a lead balloon. In fact, it had our team wondering if we should just refuse the new name and stick with the old one!
As uncovered by TechRaptor, Monster Energy opposed Ubisoft’s trademark for the title “Gods & Monsters.” The logic goes that Monster has enough of a presence within video games that Ubisoft’s use could reasonably cause confusion among consumers.
Logic which runs counter to the purpose of trademark law, to how trademark law actually works in terms of market designations, as well as to good business and marketing. Taking those in reverse order: the name change is almost objectively terrible. I have yet to find any publication that thinks the title switch was even a wash for Ubisoft, never mind beneficial. The universal opinion seems to be, and I agree with it, that Ubisoft to one extent or another participated in a bit of self-harm by this rebranding.
Now, on to the actual legal question. The consensus here too seems to be that Ubisoft could have easily have won this battle on the merits, but didn’t want to simply to avoid any delay stemming from a legal battle.
Playing armchair attorney, this seems like something Ubisoft probably could’ve won, no? My guess is that it has less to do with whether or not Ubisoft cared to spend the money on this legal battle, and more to do with just getting the game out on shelves. Immortals has been delayed already, and its sales factor into Ubisoft’s fiscal year that ends in March 2021. Fighting a protracted trademark infringement case would further delay the game. Going ahead with the name Gods & Monsters would result in an injunction. Ubisoft may be in the right, but it doesn’t have the time to prove it.
Which is all probably true, but only if Ubisoft couldn’t have gotten a declaratory judgement when Monster Energy first opposed the trademark application. Because it is quite clear that there is no infringement here. Whatever participation Monster Energy has in the video game space, most of which is mere sponsorship and advertising, it still isn’t a maker of video games. Ubisoft should have needed merely to point that out to get its use declared legit. Couple that with the broader question as to whether literally anyone would make the association between a video game called Gods & Monsters and an energy drink company and I would guess getting a court to side with it would have been fairly easy for Ubisoft.
But Ubisoft decided against that route and bowed to Monster Energy’s bullying. Which is how we get Immortals Fenyx Rising instead of Gods & Monsters. An objectively worse name. For no reason, other than trademark bullying.
Cool.
Filed Under: gods and monsters, immortals fenyx rising, monster, trademark
Companies: monster energy, ubisoft
Monster Energy Opposes Teenager's Trademark Application Over Logos Not At All Similar
from the monster-bash dept
Monster Energy. The company’s name is enough to set the average Techdirt reader’s eyes rolling. The company that makes sugar-heavy energy drinks has become essentially a caricature of an overly aggressive trademark enforcer. This habit is somewhat surprising, given just how often the company loses lawsuits and oppositions, which one would think would be a deterrent for future behavior. Instead, it almost seems as though every loss only spurs Monster Energy on.
This continues on to today, when we learn that Monster Energy filed an opposition to a 21-year-old’s trademark application for his business, Monarch Energy. You’re probably thinking that the opposition is over the name of the young man’s company, which would itself be a stretch as trademark infringement. But, no, it’s over the kid’s proposed logo.
At age 16, Mason McGuire discovered arthritis in his lower back. The mountain biker, baseball player and motorcycle rider wanted to stay active without aggravating his newfound aches. One year older, the Forest Charter School graduate decided to start his own business to mitigate his problems, and hopefully ease those of others.
While taking a business course at Sierra College, the words of one individual continued to ring in his head: “My teacher kept saying, ‘You’ll never learn it until you do it,’” he said.
So he did.
But on July 30, McGuire received a letter that stunted his company’s development. Monster Energy filed a notice of opposition against his company, Monarch Energy, for violating trademark rules. Specifically, it said McGuire’s logo was too similar to Monster’s.
Are the logos similar? No, they damn well are not.
Other than the fact that both logos incorporate the letter “M” and both companies list their names below that “M”, there is little to nothing similar about these two logos. The names of the companies, both prominently displayed, are different. The fonts are different. The styling around the letter “M” is different. The rest of the trade dress is different. Are people going to be confused by these two company logos? No, they absolutely are not.
And, yet, this 21 year old has had to deal with this opposition before even getting his company truly off the ground.
Despite maintaining distinctions, McGuire said he was a bit nervous Monster Energy would file a claim against his company, because of Monster’s history of filing lawsuits, so he tried doing his due diligence before choosing the logo.
“I made sure to go over the rules many times that wouldn’t infringe with Monster,” he said. But, he later said he suspected the large energy company might intervene legally anyway.
McGuire acknowledges that there is no trademark police per se, meaning that Monster Energy must be aware of smaller businesses trying to exploit its brand. But, he added, the company can drop the court filing once it realizes an entrepreneur is not acting in bad faith.
“I don’t care too much that they’re going after me,” he said. But McGuire — who has yet to hire an attorney — said he could lose his business with the possible legal fees needed to combat Monster Energy. He also said he can’t afford a new trademark to change his logo, for which he’s already paid.
Monster Energy doesn’t have to care about the harm it’s doing, of course, but it certainly should. Especially when this is yet another example of an opposition that never needed to be filed. But because Monster Energy wants to play the bully, a young man that started a business might lose it.
Filed Under: mason mcguire, monster, trademark
Companies: monarch energy, monster energy
Monster Energy Loses Trademark Opposition As UK IPO Mentions That The Letter 'M' Isn't Distinctive
from the m-kay dept
Monster Energy: is there no trademark opposition they can’t lose? The drink company, which might be more well known at this point for its trademark bullying than its beverages, has been handed loss after loss after loss after loss in trademark oppositions to everything from industrial paint manufacturers to the NBA and on to other beverage companies. Why the company spends so much time opposing trademarks is literally anyone’s guess, but the losses all amount to the complete lack of potential confusion in the disputed trademark applications, as well as Monster Energy believing it can control words and images that it most certainly cannot.
The latest of these, in yet another opposition Monster Energy lost, has the UK’s IPO explaining to Monster Energy that it cannot prevent other companies from using the letter “M” prominently in their logos.
In a decision on Wednesday, March 6, the UK IP Office ruled that Monster Energy could not stop Robert Marchington from registering a trademark, finding there was no likelihood of confusion.
In its opposition, Monster relied on its earlier registered marks (EU numbers 2439068; 3227041; 12924973 and 14226765) which depict animal or monster scratch marks that create the letter ‘M’. The mark was for a pair of legs which took the shape of the letter ‘M’ and seemed to be taking a step forward.
In its decision the IPO said Marchington’s applied-for mark and Monster’s trademarks were visually similar only to a low degree. It said that the presence of the letter ‘M’ in both parties’ marks “does not convey any particular meaning”.
The fact that Monster Energy needed to be told as much serves as a wonderful barometer for how ridiculous Monster Energy trademark oppositions generally are. Again, when it comes to trademark law, the entire point is to prevent public confusion as to the source of goods. Monster Energy’s logo is indeed distinctive, as it makes the letter “M” out of claw marks. This does not somehow grant exclusivity to the letter “M” to Monster Energy, however. Legs and clawmarks, in other words, are different.
As are the markets of soft drinks and alcohol, according to the IPO.
“Whilst soft drinks and alcoholic drinks are similar in nature in that they are both liquids for consumption, consumers will consider them to be different categories of goods,” the IPO said.
Additionally, it said that “syrups and preparations”, covered by Machington’s mark, cannot be considered a finish drink product, and therefore will not be in competition with Monster’s beverages.
I continue to be baffled as to how paying all of these billable hours, or the salaries and benefits for the in-house legal team, just to handle the load of trademark oppositions that routinely end up as losses, makes any financial sense.
Filed Under: m, robert marchington, trademark, uk
Companies: monster energy
Monster Energy Loses Appeal On Monsta Pizza Trademark Ruling
from the monster-loss dept
Monster Energy, maker of caffeinated liquid crank, has a long and legendary history of being roughly the most obnoxious trademark bully on the planet. It faces stiff competition in this arena of bad, of course, but it has always put up quite a fight to win that title. The company either sues or attempts to block trademarks for everything that could even possibly be barely linked to the term “monster” in any way. One such case was its opposition to a trademark registration for Monsta Pizza in the UK. Pizza is, of course, not a beverage, but that didn’t stop Monster Energy from trying to keep the pizza chain from its name. It lost that opposition, with the IPO pointing out that its citizens are not stupid enough to be confused between drinks and pizza.
And that should have been the end of the story, except that this is Monster Energy we’re talking about, so of course it appealed its loss. Its grounds for appeal amounted to “Nuh-uh! The public really might be confused!” Thankfully, Monster Energy lost this appeal as well.
However, the bid was rejected “in its entirety” at the Court of Appeal.
Chris Dominey, who founded travelling pizzeria Monsta with Christopher Lapham in 2017, said he had been “immensely relieved” to reach the end of the battle but the business remained in debt due to legal fees which could not be recouped.
He said: “It feels great, I have got my business back, and it does feel good to beat a ‘big bully’ so to speak. If you are confident that you are right you should go for it, but but I would tell other small businesses to beware that it does cost a lot of money.”
He’s not kidding. In all, Dominey’s business is out over eight thousand pounds in legal costs, having only been able to recover a fraction of what it cost him to defend his business against what appears to be a completely frivolous trademark opposition. That’s how trademark bullying works, of course. Large companies like Monster Energy rely on that onerous cost to be able to get away with its spurious demands. That simply is not how trademark law is supposed to work.
But in the modern age, there are ways a business can get its customers to help fight back against such bullying.
The business uses a monster-shaped pizza oven, which its logo is designed to represent, meaning a name change would have required considerable upheaval. Mr Dominey thanked people who contributed to a crowdfunding campaign which helped pay for some of the legal costs, and those who “gave us support and told us to keep fighting”.
The world needs more companies like Monsta Pizza fighting back against this kind of bullying to have a more global impact on trademark bullying. For now, we’ll just have to enjoy another Monster Energy loss.
Filed Under: monsta, monster, trademark, uk
Companies: monsta pizza, monster energy
Monster Energy Fails Its Attempt To Claim That Its Beverages Are Indistinguishable From Industrial Paint
from the dipsticks dept
One of the things that’s always coaxed a wry laugh from me is when there is some trademark dispute between two entities that results in a claim that customers will be confused between two products which, if that were true, would make the plaintiff’s product sound really gross. Examples include that time Benihana suggested the public might eat a rap artist thinking it was their food, or when Makers Mark thought that people might somehow mistake its whiskey for tequila, which doesn’t say much for its whiskey.
Perhaps Monster Energy saw these and other past examples of this and was all, “Hold my beer.”, because it filed a trademark opposition against Monster Dip, which makes industrial paint and coatings.
Monster had filed the appeal with the EU General Court after the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), in April 2016, dismissed its opposition to a trademark registered by German resident Marco Bösel. Bösel applied to register a figurative trademark for ‘Monster Dip’ in 2014. The classes covered by the trademark are 2, 37 and 45. These include paints, coating preparations and the painting of vehicles.
Monster opposed the registration, arguing that it would infringe its registered trademarks for ‘Monster Energy’. The Opposition Division of the EUIPO rejected Monster’s claim in April 2016, with the EUIPO also rejecting Monster’s subsequent appeal in February 2017.
As Monster Energy doesn’t have trademarks for those classes, all it can really be suggesting is that there would be some confusion in the public that Monster Dip’s products were associated in some way with Monster Energy’s. And that suggestion sure sounds like Monster Energy suggesting that the public may not be able to tell its energy drink beverages from industrial paint. Which is amazing. I mean, I’ve had this exact thought for years, but getting Monster Energy to admit as much is deeply satisfying.
Fortunately for Monster Dip, Monster Energy’s final appeal to the EU courts failed.
Monster’s most recent appeal was brought to the General Court in July last year, seeking a rejection of Bösel’s registration for the trademark and an order for the EUIPO to pay costs. The court ruled that there was not sufficient similarity in the goods and services covered by each company’s respective trademark to cause confusion over the provider of those goods and services. Affirming the EUIPO’s decision, the court found that the sections of the “relevant public” who would understand the words ‘monster’ and ‘energy’ would also be able to distinguish between the two brands.
The court ordered Monster Energy to pay costs.
It’s the last bit of this result that has me so very confused as to why Monster Energy continues to do this to itself.
Filed Under: energy drink, monster, paint, trademark
Companies: monster dip, monster energy