By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
Barnard | Law Firm
  • Latest News
  • About Barnard
    • About US
    • Our Services
    • Our Team
  • Calculators
  • Contact
Reading: Monster Energy’s beastly trademark protection woes serve as a lesson for brand owners
Aa
Barnard | Law Firm
  • Latest Articles
  • About Us
  • Our Services
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
Follow US
© Barnard Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.
Barnard BriefsIntellectual Property

Monster Energy’s beastly trademark protection woes serve as a lesson for brand owners

By Alisha Muller 5 Min Read
Share

Monster Energy, the famed energy drink company partially owned by Coca-Cola, has developed a reputation for aggressively protecting its trademarks, and it seems that not even beloved video games are safe from its all-seeing eye. According to a report published this week in Automaton, a Japanese media outlet, the Monster Beverage Corporation has filed 134 trademark objections in Japan’s Patent Office and over 100 objections before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The report claims that the Monster Beverage Corporation has opposed the trademark registrations of Pokémon X, Pokémon Y, Pokémon Sun, and Pokémon Moon, as well as the Monster Hunter brand, including the video game Monster Hunter Generations. The mobile game, Monster Strike, has also faced opposition from the energy drink company over its full title and abbreviation, “Monst.”

While the idea that someone could mistakenly associate the Monster Hunter and Monster Strike video games with Monster Energy drinks is highly unlikely, the Monster Beverage Corporation has aggressively continued with its objections. In the case of Pokémon, the Monster Beverage Corporation argued that the series’ use of both its full title, Pocket Monsters, and its abbreviation, Pokémon, could cause confusion among consumers.

The Monster Beverage Corporation’s continued trademark battles against various other brands highlight the importance of selecting a distinctive and unique mark when selecting a trademark. In South Africa, trademarks are governed by the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (“The Act”), which governs the protection provided to trademarks, including protection for distinctive marks.

According to the Act, a trademark is “any sign capable of being represented graphically, including a device, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation, colour or container for goods or any combination of the aforementioned.” When selecting a trademark, one should, therefore, pay careful attention to ensure that it selects a mark that is both distinctive and unique in order to ensure that the mark would not likely be confused with registered or well-known trademarks.

A strong trademark is one that is inherently distinctive. On the other hand, a mark that is either descriptive, in that the mark describes the goods or services being offered, or generic is less likely to be eligible for trademark protection because it lacks distinctiveness.

Selecting a trademark that is not inherently distinctive may result in the brand owner spending vast amounts of money and resources to defend the registrability of the trademark and may result in confusion among consumers, particularly where such a mark is similar to another one in the market. 

South African trademark law governs the protection of registered and foreign well-known unregistered trademarks, but the protection offered to a brand owner is dependent on the distinctiveness of the mark and may vary depending on the particular mark in question. The trademark owner can avoid opposition to their mark by selecting a strong and unique mark that is capable of standing up to any potential challenges. In the case of Monster Beverage Corporation, the company’s aggressive stance on trademark protection has led to numerous legal battles, some of which could have been avoided if the company had chosen a more distinctive and unique mark in the first place. It could be argued that Monster’s brand owners have satisfied themselves that the trade-off of the mark’s gained value compared to the legal costs involved in defending it are acceptable – and thus anticipated. 

Still, the Monster Beverage Corporation’s trademark battles will serve as a cautionary tale for companies looking to register a trademark and create a brand identity around its trademarks. It is essential to select a distinctive and unique mark that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one trader from the goods or services of another – an imperative in ensuring that the brand owner protects their brand identity and avoids costly legal battles.

Latest News and Insights
With a focus on recent cases, the role of regulatory bodies like the ARB and NCC, and the implications of the Consumer Protection Act, the piece delves into the growing trend of holding businesses accountable for misleading 'green' marketing.
Navigating The Green Tide: South Africa’s Emerging Greenwashing Litigation Landscape
Commercial Litigation News and Insights
Grandparents' Rights under the Children’s Act 38 of 2005
Do grandparents have rights over their grandchildren under South African law?
Family Law News and Insights
Constitutional Court Reforms Divorce Act
Constitutional Court Reforms Divorce Act
Family Law News and Insights
Through real-world examples like Rolex and Tudor, understand how trademarks transcend mere symbols, shaping brand perception, market entry strategies, and legal safeguards, ultimately driving business success and enhancing overall worth.
What is the Value of a Trademark?
Intellectual Property News and Insights
Alisha Muller 15th April 2023
Share this Article
Facebook LinkedIn Email Copy Link Print
By Alisha Muller
Follow:
Junior Associate

Discuss this article with me:

Ad image

You Might Also Like

Through real-world examples like Rolex and Tudor, understand how trademarks transcend mere symbols, shaping brand perception, market entry strategies, and legal safeguards, ultimately driving business success and enhancing overall worth.

What is the Value of a Trademark?

5 Min Read

Avoiding Disputes On The AI Catwalk: When Fashion Meets Tech, Who Wears The Crown?

4 Min Read

Sole Searching in AI: What Louboutin’s trademark battle teaches us about Legal Tech

5 Min Read

In the Pink Palace of Glitz: An Autopsy of Mattel’s Glamorous IP Strategy for the Barbie Brand

4 Min Read
Tree White

© Barnard Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • Barnard is a Level 2 BEE contributor
  • Privacy Policy
  • Careers
  • Law Students
  • Fidelity Fund Certificates
  • Testimonials
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?