It's understandable for a company to sue others for trademark infringement when a service mark is evidently used without authorization. However, Monster Energy has been threatening other brands for the use of a common word, "Monster."
Monster Energy Lives Up to Its Name
The company has been throwing around infringement claims for a while now, so much so that they are already known for it. One of the most known cases it had was against game titles like Pokémon and Monster Hunter.
While Monster Hunter is understandable, Pokémon might be a little confusing for others. To Explain, Pokémon is actually short for "pocket monsters," and apparently, Monster Energy could not let that slide as well, as mentioned in Gizmodo.
The beverage company also targeted specific Pokémon titles like Pokémon X, Pokémon Y, Pokémon Sun, and Pokémon Moon. Other games like Monster Hunter Generations and the mobile game Monster Strike was also noticed.
So far, reports say that the company has already presented 134 trademark objections in Japan, and more than 100 objections in the US. Some would argue that no one would ever mistake the brands that Monster Energy went against as their own.
Founder and CEO of Video Game Studio Glowstick, Vincent Livings stated that Monster Energy is a bully owned by Coca-Cola Co, and urged people not to support bullies. The latter is partially owned by the former and has a market cap of $55 billion.
While some remain undeterred by Monster Energy's claims of infringement, others have given in to the company's demands. For instance, Immortals: Fenyx Rising was originally called Gods & Monsters, but Ubisoft was forced to change it.
Another is Glowstick Entertainment being called out by Monster Energy for its game, Dark Deception: Monsters & Mortals. While Glowstick was allowed to use the word "Monster" for the game, the beverage corporation proposed that they don't use it for other game titles anymore.
Most Recent Case
The Monster Beverage Corporation has set its eyes on a Zambian company called Swiss Bake Limited for applying to register a trademark for the product name "Amazon Mosta Creams" in Class 30 for biscuits.
The beverage giant argued that the application should be denied, saying that consumers might be confused between the products and that the application for Amazon Mosta Creams was filed in bad faith, according to ManagingIP.
However, the Zambian company emerged victorious as the hearing officer stated that there was no similarity or confusion. Uk judgments said that whether it was similar cannot be determined solely by class.
Some of the important considerations mentioned were the nature of the goods, the uses and users of the goods, the extent to which the goods are competitive, and the trademark channels that were used.
Ultimately, the hearing sided with Swiss Bake, saying that confections and biscuits are not the same as nutritional supplements in liquid form, or other drinks like tea. Both goods had a different nature since one was solid and the other was liquid, and they did not compete.
