On September 29, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) denied a trademark opposition filed by the classic beverage brand Monster Energy Company (“MEC”), finding the contested trademark “MPOWER魔量及圖” not confusingly similar to MEC’s “M claw” and “魔爪” icons (e.g., Reg. No. 02050772, 01497952, 02051894, and 02002179, see below).
The contested trademark, “MPOWER魔量及圖” (Reg. No. 02382916, see below, hereafter “MPOWER”), was filed on November 21, 2023, and registered on June 16, 2024. MPOWER covered various drinks in Class 32, including beers, non-alcoholic beverages, juices, energy drinks, soft drinks, etc. MEC filed opposition on September 13, 2024, alleging that registration of MPOWER violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.
TIPO did not rule in the favor of MEC based on the following:
1. On similarity, TIPO considered the contested trademark dissimilar to MEC’s M claw design or “魔爪”. In its entirety, TIPO noted that the MPOWER mark consists of a symbolic mask, together with stylized English letters “MPOWER” and Chinese characters “魔量”. On the other hand, MEC’s trademarks either featured a monster’s or devil’s claw, or the Chinese characters “魔爪”/”魔爪能量”, which were visually distinct from the contested trademark. While MEC argued that “魔量” implied “energy of devil” or “energy of the devil claw”, and may render ordinary consumers perceive of MEC’s “魔爪” or ”魔爪能量”, TIPO found MEC did not submit evidence to back such argument in this regard. Hence, TIPO considered MEC’s arguments unpersuasive, and determined that the two trademarks were dissimilar to each other.
2. MEC argued that its trademarks were well-known before the filing date of the contested trademark, but TIPO disagreed. Upon reviewing the evidence submitted by MEC, TIPO found the records were either made in foreign languages or for MEC’s sponsorship of sports events, which were insufficient to show MEC’s trademarks and its branded energy drinks had been widely recognized or accessed by consumers in Taiwan before the filing date of the contested trademark. Although MEC’s sales records proved that there were actual sales in Taiwan since 2017, such records still failed to show MEC’s market share and brand recognition. Hence, TIPO did not consider MEC’s cited trademarks had achieved well-known status before the filing date of the contested trademark.
3. On the designated products, TIPO agreed that both the contested trademark and MEC’s cited trademarks cover similar beverages and drinks. However, TIPO noted that there was no evidence of actual confusion among the consumers, or bad faith on the part of the registrant of MPOWER.
4. Given that the two trademarks were dissimilar, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the well-known status of MEC’s trademarks, TIPO concluded that MEC’s opposition against MPOWER should be denied. Mere presence of Chinese character “魔”, and the overlap of product category were insufficient to show consumers would confuse MPOWER with MEC’s trademarks, or MPOWER was registered with the intent to imitate MEC’s well-known trademarks.
Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOkBsYUpfvjzwI3YR1in12NcpdEq%2F7Q
