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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: energy drink, monster, paint, trademark
Companies: monster dip, monster energy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Confusion in the market place
You hit the ball out of the park. I have never tried Monster Energy's drink because that is exactly what I though they might be selling, watered down industrial sludge. But paint works too.
I want to thank Monster Energy for clearing up any confusion as it certainly appears that they were worried about an industrial paint company siphoning off beverage drinkers, leaving no doubt about the source for Monster Energy's drinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusion in the market place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confusion in the market place
In fact, it seemed to work more like a solvent than a paint, causing my primer to bubble and flake. Would not buy Monster Energy industrial paints again, nor recommend them to a friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sludge
I've always preferred "Rock Star" energy drink. I'm waiting to see them start suing musical performers but so far that hasn't happened. Which is confusing in itself - why aren't their lawyers going on the Trademark warpath against actual rock stars??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rock Star
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All tied up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All tied up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All tied up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All tied up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Busy work
Lawyers need something to do..not alwasy smart, but it makes it look like they are doing something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Busy work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A more polite way of saying, "despite what you may think, your customers are not complete morons". Nice burn by the court :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I mean really, they're dumb enough to buy from US.'
As always cases like this showcase nicely just how monumentally stupid certain companies seem to think their customers are.
'Your Honor, our customers are so incredibly stupid that they would absolutely confuse an energy drink with industrial paint if we let this trademark go through, which is why we have filed an objection to it on the grounds of potential customer confusion.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'I mean really, they're dumb enough to buy from US.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Understandable concern
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Understandable concern
I've always felt that Monster Energy drinks were indistinguishable from industrial solvent, so I can understand why they got confused with industrial paint. ;)
It's not confusing at all - any time you see something like this, it's a law firm making work for itself. The company pays them, win or lose. Lawyers and law firms trying to invent work from nothing are behind nearly every situation that seems bonkers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No doubt ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monster is such an arbitrary word to claim, and I bet it's because common lexicon no longer uses 'Monster Energy'.
I can't think of the last time I heard someone say "Can you get me a Monster Energy Drink". Just a 'Monster'. How long until this starts bleeding into other words? Or do we just preface everything with ™ to ensure we are always honoring trademarks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This suit is about confusion, not generic use. I really wouldn't be surprised if Monster's trademark lawyers know the difference between the two categories, but don't want to tell Monster. Seriously, why shut down that gravy train?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's a non-comparison they made which explains why this seems so absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearly monster dip was creating confusion in the market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]