The company that produces the well-known U.S. beverage "Monster Energy" has finally lost a trademark dispute against a Korea-based maker of workout supplement drinks.
The Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Kwon Young-jun) said on the 28th that on Apr. 5 it affirmed the lower court ruling in favor of Kim Jae-yoon, head of JBio, in a lawsuit to confirm the scope of rights filed against the U.S. company Monster Energy Company.
JBio produces and sells a drink called "Jambaegi Energy," which boosts workout efficiency. In December 2020, Kim filed a scope-of-rights trial with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board, arguing that the Jambaegi Energy product packaging design does not fall within the scope of rights of the Monster Energy logo.
In August 2022, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board found that the "claw mark" design depicted on Jambaegi Energy's product packaging was similar to Monster Energy's products. Kim then filed a suit with the Intellectual Property High Court seeking to overturn that decision.
Monster Energy Company argued that the dominant impression conveyed by the design motifs and appearance of Monster Energy and Jambaegi Energy is the same or similar—"claw marks"—and that there is a likelihood of confusion, so the board's decision was lawful.
The Intellectual Property High Court ruled that comparing the two companies' product package designs showed differences in appearance, pronunciation, and associated concept, and therefore would not cause mistake or confusion.
Regarding Monster Energy's logo, the court said, "Three lines in the shape of 'ㄱ' are arranged side by side," adding, "Combining this with the lowercase English letters below meaning 'monster,' 'MONSTER,' the graphic part would be intuitively perceived as the letter 'M' stylized as a monster's claw marks."
By contrast, regarding the Jambaegi Energy logo, the court said, "It is hard to perceive the three angular lines of differing thickness as evoking 'ㄱ' or as a stylization of the letter 'M,'" and "Since the textual element 'Jambaegi Energy' is composed only in a relatively simple and clear Gothic typeface, it is difficult to see the appearances of the two marks as similar."
The Supreme Court said, "(Monster Energy's logo) is naturally perceived as roughly the lowercase alphabet 'm,'" while "(Jambaegi Energy's logo) is somewhat more likely to be perceived as mere scratch marks than an 'm,'" and concluded, "(Monster Energy's) mark does not fall within the scope of rights of the registered trademark."
Earlier, Monster Energy filed a trademark invalidation suit against Mad Catz, a Korea-based seller of computer peripherals, but finally lost at the Supreme Court in Apr. 2018. Monster Energy argued that the two companies' logos were similar as animal claw scratch marks, but both the Intellectual Property High Court and the Supreme Court rejected the claim.