MONSTER ENERGY CO v. 洪嘉珮

MONSTER ENERGY CO v. 洪嘉珮

The court affirmed the Hearing Officer's decision: the Earlier MONSTER marks possess only a moderate degree of inherent distinctiveness for the registered goods; the Subject Mark ICE MONSTER & device is perceived by the average consumer as a composite dominated by ICE MONSTER and the ice device which gives a distinct overall impression; on visual, aural and conceptual comparison the degree of similarity between the Subject Mark and the Earlier Marks is very low; although some goods are identical or similar, the lack of mark similarity means use of the Subject Mark is not likely to cause confusion under s 12(3) TMO; accordingly the opposition was correctly dismissed.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 561
Parties
Appellant / Opponent: MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY; Respondent / Applicant: ICE MONSTER
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 April 2020
Case Number
HCIP5/2019
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Opposition Appeal / Appeal From Registrar (rehearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Hearing Officer (Registrar) affirmed
Legal Topics
Similarity of Marks, Likelihood of Confusion, Distinctiveness, Comparison of Goods, Standard of Appellate Review
Source Language
EN
Trade Marks Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Similarity of Marks Likelihood of Confusion Distinctiveness Comparison of Goods Standard of Appellate Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY

Appellant / Opponent

ICE MONSTER

Respondent / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Trade Mark Opposition Appeal / Appeal From Registrar (rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Inherent distinctive character of the Opponent's earlier marks
  2. 2 Identification of the dominant and distinctive elements of the Subject Mark
  3. 3 Identification of the dominant and distinctive elements of the Earlier Marks

Ratio Decidendi

The court affirmed the Hearing Officer's decision: the Earlier MONSTER marks possess only a moderate degree of inherent distinctiveness for the registered goods; the Subject Mark ICE MONSTER & device is perceived by the average consumer as a composite dominated by ICE MONSTER and the ice device which gives a distinct overall impression; on visual, aural and conceptual comparison the degree of similarity between the Subject Mark and the Earlier Marks is very low; although some goods are identical or similar, the lack of mark similarity means use of the Subject Mark is not likely to cause confusion under s 12(3) TMO; accordingly the opposition was correctly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Hearing Officer (Registrar) affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Decision dated 6 March 2019 affirmed
  • Costs ordered nisi in favour of the Applicant; costs to be to the Applicant and to be made absolute 14 days after handing down of judgment