On February 17, 2020, Monster Energy Company (MEC), the registrant of series of “Monster Energy” trademarks (see below) in Taiwan, filed opposition against “megamonster”, alleging that “megamonster” is similar with its famous trademarks “Monster Energy”, and there exists likelihood of confusion among the relevant public.
The opposed trademark, “megamonster”, was filed on April 19, 2019, and granted on December 1, 2019 (Reg. No. 02026088, see below), designated for use in goods under class 20, including products like table, chairs, metal furnitures, wooden ornaments, hangers, ladders, etc.
Taiwan’s IP Office (TIPO) found against MEC on March 12, 2021, finding no similarity between MEC’s alleged trademarks and the opposed trademark:
1. TIPO noted that the opposed trademark mainly features a large and stylized letter “M” with “megamonster” underneath. The style, structure, and organization, when viewed as a whole, are substantially different from MEC’s word mark (i.e., “Monster Energy”) and the combination of claw and “Monster Energy” shown in the cited trademarks.
2. Although MEC argued that its cited trademarks should be well-known trademarks in Taiwan, TIPO found the evidence presented by MEC insufficient. While the submitted news reports did show that MEC’s cited trademarks appeared in numerous worldwide famous gaming and sports contests sponsored by MEC, TIPO was of the view that the main content and focus of these reports were about the sponsored events, not MEC’s trademarks. In other words, such reports are not direct evidence showing MEC’s active use of trademark in Taiwan. Thus, TIPO did not consider them sufficient to support MEC’s arguments that the cited trademarks have become well-known in Taiwan.
3. MEC further argued that its energy drinks products, which bear the cited trademarks, are very popular in Taiwan. The sale of MEC’s products should support the well-known status of the cited trademarks. However, TIPO found there is no evidence such as sales records or data like market shares to back MEC’s position. Therefore, TIPO did not side with MEC.
4. In sum, since the evidence submitted by MEC could not support a finding of well-known status of MEC’s cited trademarks, and the degree of similarity between the cited trademarks and the opposed trademark is low, TIPO found registration of “megamonster” not violating Trademark law.
In view of the above, MEC’s opposition was denied.
Source:
沒有留言:
張貼留言