I don't see a problem with this. Hansen HAS to protect their trademark from any possible infringement, or they will lose it. The only exception is if Hansen can be proved to have believed that it was minor and inconsequential -- another company making a drink with almost the same name and then trying to get a trademark on the name does not sound inconsequential.
If Hansen sues, they get to keep their trademark whether they win or lose. If they don't, they could lose a very valuable trademark. It's a no brainer.
Robert Basil
· 1 month ago
You are 100% correct. :)
stephen
· 1 month ago
thank you for bringing sense to this debacle. no one gets it
Joe
· 1 month ago
Adam Ostrow, you have to be kidding. You didn't do any research before this, did you? There is already a response letter out from Hansen's explaining the cease and desist, etc.
whoops, I should've titled this article "small brewery foolishly dares to challenge monster energy." my bad.
Sam
· 1 month ago
Yup, your bad. Maybe you should actually do some research on trademark law and how trademark law works before writing this ridiculously biased article. Then again, you right for an online website. You probably aren't smart enough to properly analyze and understand trademark law issues.
Adam Ostrow
· 1 month ago
maybe I'm not cut out for this whole "righting" thing
Sam
· 1 month ago
You definitley are not cut out for the whole "righting" thing. Dumb asshole. What community college did you go to? You have such an amazing career ahead of you!
Greg
· 1 month ago
Sam your'e a douche.
stevesidea
· 1 month ago
when hopped up on energy drinks, we all make mistakes
Becky Grant
· 1 month ago
Yeah I second that! I have stayed up late so many times off energy drinks and have done some pretty crazy things I wouldn't normally do!
Robert Basil
· 1 month ago
Of course he didn't do any research. This is Mashable after all where "The pageviews count more than the truth" Gotta keep all those advertisers over there on the right side of the page happy ya know! Mashable keeps getting more like TechCrunch every day.... Sad...
Angel Panneflek
· 1 month ago
then why do you come here and read? I find that mashable does a great job at interacting with the readers.. Its not just about the story its about his point of view too.. And ppl make mistakes. Just because of this mistake you say that mashable is just about pageviews? Maybe you should do your own research first...
Jason Harris
· 1 month ago
I think this is the same Joe who has been doing the same thing over at the Facebook page. I don't know what their intentions are but they are against our cause and are just repeating the same things. They sound like they were hired by Monster or Hansen or they are just people who already worked there.
petergorman
· 1 month ago
Monster.com should go after AMP for calling their energy drink "Monster" and give them a taste of their own medicine!
Robert Basil
· 1 month ago
Get a clue.
Name
· 1 month ago
Wow, a little rude are we?
Robert Basil
· 1 month ago
Not rude, just hate stupid people.
stephen
· 1 month ago
This small brewery needs to change their beers name. If he wants to go for the "ten" theme then call it "the perfect ten". No one really cares. Its infringement on the grounds that someone may be confused and mix monster energy drink with selling alcoholic beverages. If this goes to court, that's whats going to be said by Monster and Monster will win. This guy needs to give up before he gets in over his head. Starbucks runs all over people because they have money. We've all seen it before. Get out the fiddles and play the sad songs. If you ask me its not that sad. All he has to do is change his beers name. One beer. At least its not his trade name.
Ryan Amirault
· 1 month ago
Will Monster energy send a cease and desist letter to Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream for their Vermonster ice cream sundae as well?
stephen
· 1 month ago
Monster is in the beverage industry, Ben and Jerry's is in the Ice Cream business. Monster isn't protected for their trademark under a separate industry. So no, they wont...
Skatelle
· 1 month ago
Maybe they should try Odwalla's "B Monster" then.
Jack
· 1 month ago
YES! I love it! Americans run America, not those greedy corporate bastards!
Johnson
· 1 month ago
No way Ben and Jerrys are not that good anyway, you need mom and pop shops. Two VoicesBlog Crazy
Bruce Bishop
· 1 month ago
Ben and Jerry's dose have the financing to take them on in court.
Name
· 1 month ago
I love it.... Monster/Hansen goes after a small family-run brewery for their "Vermonster", but doesn't go after another billion dollar ice-cream company i.e., Ben & Jerry's "Vermonster".... Doesn't that show that Monster/Hansen are acting like bullies just because they think this might be an "easy kill" of a small-time biz.... That is so not right.....
stephen
· 1 month ago
Haha, this must be a joke. Where's your level of intelligence? You really think Monster/Hansen has a case against an ICE CREAM name? common man. You learn this is Business Law 101. The Vermonster and Monster are both beverages. Thus there is an infringement because the names are similar. I agree that sometimes this should not be the case, that the big guy should not trample the little guy. BUT, there are certain guidelines and rights we live by in the US and you have to play by the rules. If the infringement laws on trademarks were state by state, it'd be different. One is in Vermony and the other in California. But be real, its nation-wide. Monster/Hansen is protected by the laws wether you like it or not. It'd be easier for Mike just to change that name of his beer. Welcome to reality. It's not that fact that 'corporate america' can buy anything with money. It's the fact that there are laws, you live in the US, so abide by em. Simple, easy, Black and White. You don't like em? go to Canada. Monster/Hansen will win. Guaranteed.
Don't think I'm hating on breweries. I love a local beer as much as the next guy. but laws are laws. Plus, a boycott on Monster just isn't realistic. You think most people in the nation care about the small brewery? You're wrong. Monster is a damn good enerhy drink and they make way too much money off of other products for a boycott the size of a small college to heart them.
Andrew Watson
· 1 month ago
Laws are laws, yes. That doesn't mean we have to like the laws, or the bullies who hit with them. This case makes me almost regret I've never used Monster (TM, WTF, YDUFO, whatever other letters are appropriate) NRG drinx, since that prevents a meaningful boycott. It does make me thirsty for a Vermonster microbrew.
Rich
· 1 month ago
First off, Stephen, if you are going to ask where someone's level of intelligence is, you should be capable of not mixing up "weather" with "whether' and "heart" with "hurt," as well as knowing that trademark laws are virtually the same in Canada, where we are apparently supposed to go, as they are in the US.
Second, Hansen's federal trademark covers "Monster" and "Monster Energy," not "Vermonster." Meanwhile, Rock Art has a state trademark dating from 2006 for "Vermonster." As Hansen's trademark is limited to Monster and Monster Energy, Rock Art's existing state trademark takes precedent.
Finally, Ben & Jerry's is owned by Unilever, a multi-national corporation with $40.5 in revenue last year alone. That is far more important in Hansen's decision not to take on Ben & Jerry's than their respective industries.
If the reason is to prevent confusion, then why has Hansen not gone after Brooklyn brewing co. for their Monster Ale, or Terrapin for Big Hoppy Monster? Going after one to protect their trademark while leaving the others alone is hypocritical at best.
Hansen attempted to acquire a trademark for Vermonster and found the name already trademarked on the state level, with a federal request pending. They were looking to expand into the alcoholic beverage market, and found a company already there. Hansen would lose a straight-up legal fight, and hopes to outspend Rock Art in the long run.
Support Rock Art in their fight against Hansen.
stephen
· 1 month ago
The spelling errors were simply due to the speed of my typing, not my intelligence. Just like Unilever made $40.50 in revenue.. I'm sure they made more than that. Let's watch the outcome, and then see who is right. Even if the trademark is for 'Monster' or 'Monster Energy', it still gives them the right to go after someone like 'Vermonster' because it is similar and under the same catergory of 'light beverage'. Everyone is saying its different because it's an alcoholic drink not an energy drink, but beer is not in the 'alcoholic beverage' category. That category is for wine, not beer. SO, under those terms Vermonster is in a great deal of hurt. Everyone seems to look past the facts and is focusing on Corporate America screwing over the little guy. Monster has in fact gone for other fish that are larger than they are proving there is no discrimination towards the small brewery. Hansen is currently taking on 99 trial appeal files of one sort or another. They even took on Coke, which has $7.4bil revenue in a quarter. The figures don’t matter. Hansen is looking in the long run, they see an issue with ‘Vermonster’ and are taking care of that issue now, before it gets too late.
sadiesara
· 1 week ago
First of all, the energy drink monster sucks and your kinda rude. This poor guy started his business from scratch WAYY before Monster energy drink even existed. Just because Monster energy drink is a big money making business, does not mean that Hansen will lose. Be a little more considerate with your words dude.
Chris Bjerrisgaard
· 1 month ago
We're all out there blogging about it, tweeting it, etc.
The craft beer community is active in the social media space and will do whatever it takes to crush Monster.
Robert Basil
· 1 month ago
"The craft beer community is active in the social media space and will do whatever it takes to crush Monster."
hahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh!
Brian
· 1 month ago
I just drank a Monster Lo-Carb - am I a bad person now -
AlexisCeule
· 1 month ago
Bottom line is... Matt's beer is no threat to big ol' Monster. The teens who drink Monster clearly know what it is. They aren't going to look for Vermonster. Heck, they aren't old enough to purchase it. So really, in the end, this is very sad. : ( Sorry to learn of this.
Stagger
· 1 month ago
All Hansen products should be boycotted... here's another facebook group dedicated to the cause, with a full list.
That is very easy to explain. The photo creates a likelihood of confusion to the consumer that Hansen is officially endorsing the actor in his costume. There is a confusion of endorsement, even though there is no endorsement of Hansen. The actor can be "riding on the coattails" of the goodwill in the Hansen name, profiting off of Hansen's goodwill, with Hansen receiving no benefit. A company can't let somebody else ride off their goodwill. It is the same reason you often see logos blurred out on certain TV programming, especially reality shows: it creates endorsement confusion! In this case, the confusion for endorsement is especially strong, because we have an actor, dressed as a monster, with a Monster-brand energy drink. The fact that the actor and Hansen were in previous discussions about an endorsement even further cements Hansen's easily winnable claim.
It's amazing how stupid people like you are.
Adam
· 1 month ago
Some of you really need to get off of your high horse. Have you actually looked at the trademarks?
Monster Energy does not own a trademark in the beer category. If it feared people associating any of the 30-40 beers out there with the word, "Monster" in it, then they would've trademarked the drink in the beer category a long-ass time ago. Instead they only trademarked it in the fruit and nutritional drinks category. They are going after Rock Art because they want to "some day" enter the alcoholic bev market.
Regardless, trademark law is broken if someone has to endure PR scrutiny for protecting its mark (meaning the public at large doesn't understand the system) but this is a case where Monster has no rights in the beer category and shouldn't be issuing C&D letters to those who do.
If categories don't matter, then Hansen could sue hundreds of companies with the name "Monster" in their names or products because of possible confusion that they are endorsing those products. Everyone would be suing each other and no one would make anything anymore.
There is no beer category! there is a 'light beverage' and an 'alcoholic beverage' category! beer is in the light beverage category!
Sam
· 1 month ago
Asshole. I'm a trademark lawyer. No need to get off my "high horse." I'm riding it, and I know what I'm talking about, unlike yourself.
There is no category for beer. Both energy drinks and beer are in the same category - "light beverages" (Category 32, if I recall correctly).
Next...
Adam
· 1 month ago
If there is no beer category then why does it say Goods & Services: Beer on Rock Art's trademark application? Clearly the company or the agency reviewing the application has determined that the trademark should be filed as 'beer' to differentiate from different product types. Monster doesn't have any trademarks associated with beer.
Case closed.
Sam
· 1 month ago
Case closed? Seriously you idiot: there is no beer category. The category is Category 32. Just because the application describes it as "beer" doesn't mean it fits into the "beer" category. It is still in the Light Beverage category.
What community college do you go to?
grahamt
· 1 month ago
Shades of the Anheuser-Busch's world-wide bully boy antics against the Budweiser Budvar brewery of the Czech Republic over the use of the name Budweiser. There the name Budweiser had been used for centuries for that style of lager before AB adopted it for it's "beers" in the US but that didn't stop them trying to claim sole right!
Tersan Agos
· 1 month ago
Does it make even a little sense for a company to choose an extremely common word in the English language, and then attempt to block all other references to that word? If Hansen chose "Zazzlebrotz" for their energy drink, it would make sense for a lawsuit around the word "Ver-Zazzlebrozz" since it may attempt to confuse the brands in the minds of the consumer.
Hansen chose a common English word and thus their patent infringement claim is a nuisance case. That's why this is an abuse, since they are asserting their rights to control on all associations with the word, EVEN IN ADVANCE of their possible entry into alcoholic beverages. They are bullies, and it's a shame that you can buy legal action of this sort. It should be thrown out of court, and the lawyers fined for bring up a frivolous suit.
stephen
· 1 month ago
"An exception is made when a description or geographic term or a surname has acquired a secondary meaning, such a mark is registrable. A term or terms that have primary meaning of their own acquire a secondary meaning when, through long use in connection with a particular product, they have come to be known by the public as identifying the particular product and its origin. For example, the geographic term Philadelphia has acquired a secondary meaning when applied to cream cheese. It is widely accepted by the public as denoting a particular brand rather than any cream cheese made in Philadelphia. Factors considered by a court in determining whether a trademark has acquired secondary meaning are the amount and manner of advertising, volume of sales, lengh and manner of use, direct consumer testimony, and consumer surveys."
-Anderson's Business Law
It may be common, but it has a secondary meaning. Thus, able to be trademarked.
Adam
· 1 month ago
re: Stephen above (why can't I reply to his reply?),
However Hansen filed their trademarks, it is clear that it was not as an alcoholic beverage. It was clear that Rock Art filed theirs as an alcoholic beverage: "G & S: beer." That or the TESS is omitting pertinent info or misleading in how it is presenting it.
Sam
· 1 month ago
Nothing is being omitted.
Hansen's trademark is for an energy drink, which is Category 32, light beverages.
Rock Art's trademark is for a beer, which is Category 32, light beverages.
People like you are so stupid.
Name
· 1 month ago
Wow. Sam is a tool.
ehouwen
· 1 month ago
Sam or Steve, since you seem to be on the in of the Monster Energy camp, can you possibly answer this: Has Hansen sued Red Robin Restaurants for their ® of "Monster Shake". This is obviously in the same non-alcoholic beverage category. If so, what was the outcome. If not, why? Much more of a threat than a beer from a business in a state who combined total population of 1/2 mil MIGHT consume 500,000 units of Brooklyn's Monster Ale, Vermonster Beer, monster cables, monster.com jobs or Ben & Jerry's Vermonster ice cream. I think we can all agree that Red Robin's Monster Shake is marketed to impressionable kids - kids who could quite reasonably be thinking it is a MONSTER ENERGY SHAKE.
ehouwen
· 1 month ago
interesting, I cannot reply to Stephen (above) either.
Stephen, since you seem to know a great deal about Hansen, have they sued Red Robin Restaurants for their MONSTER SHAKE? obviously the same target market who we all can agree would easily be confused, thinking they are getting a MONSTER ENERGY shake. This would certainly seem to be a priority for product name infringement.
time41
· 1 month ago
I am a Social Media user and I support Monster. VerMONSTER on a beverage is clearly misleading and an infringement on Monster's Trademark. This tiny brewery is trying to milk this for all it's worth. I hope Monster costs this idiot a bundle.
ehouwen
· 1 month ago
An interesting case where Bickfords of Australia attempted to use the trademarks of MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY, the initial findings were that the similarity in names could be deceiving, in regard to "passing off". Giving proper referencing to the following source: http://www.iprights.com/document.aspx?fn=load&m....
While Hansen won rregarding reputation in Australia (Hansen Beverage Company v Bickford’s (Australia) Pty Ltd, [2008] FCAFC 181), in part, the court found : "Courts can look at the impact of indirect marketing techniques, including the internet, viral campaigns and websites".
This works on both sides of the fence. There is an overwhelming majority of comments on blogs, etc, indicating there is no chance of confusing the two products. Further, elsewhere, bloggers seemingly attached Hansen refer to the Trade Practices Act.
However, also see: "http://www.mondaq.com/australia/article.asp?articleid=71306"... the Trade Practices Act is concerned with consumer protection. Consequently, the Act makes no reference to reputation, although case law establishes that the likelihood of consumers being misled or deceived relates to a "significant" or "substantial" proportion of persons within the relevant market. Accordingly, the sufficiency of the reputation that is required to be shown may be less in proceedings under the Trade Practices Act than in proceedings alleging passing off."
Hansen's letter to Rock Art is more concerned with "...a likelihood of confusion and/or dilute the distinctive quality of Hansen's MONSTER marks..." (9/4/2009 letter from Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP to Law office of Christopher Day).
Hansen needs to provide an argument for sufficient reputation in the beer market because the issue is whether a significant number of people would be misled. Since Hansen does not currently sell, distribute, purvey, advertise or market through any means, any G & S: Beer, there is no reputation to blur or mislead.
You can go to Canada: Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C.V. v. Marcon, Registrar of Trade-marks, application 1,168,019, C.R. Folz, August 12, 2008) for more regarding "Predatory trademark filer", which is as some believe is what Hansen's next step is once Rock Art is out of the beer business with Vemonster"
Or to Europe: Intel Corporation Inc v CPM United Kingdom Limited, where chip maker INTEL claimed dilusion/blurring to the distinctive character of INTEL, the chipmaker by INTELMARK, a telephone marketing company. They both have trademarks respectively. In "The World Intellectual Property Report BNA" dated 1/09 (ISSN 0952-7613),:
"...In one of the most significant parts of its decision, the ECJ found that the use of the later mark (INTELMARK) is, or would be, detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark requires evidence of a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered as a result of the use of the later mark, or a serious likelihood that such a change would occur in the future...."
This is highly unlikely given that the 1/2 the 18 - 30 male target audience is not of legal age to purchase beer. Look at the blogs all over, and you will easily see evidence that the other half overwhelmingly is not confused. Even among Monster Energy drinkers.
Do your homework.
Grapes and Grains
· 1 month ago
Wow, what a load of shite this whole thing is. In my opinion, science will show that this caffeine/sugar/taurine-driven garbage will prove to be toxic...and the thought of our children guzzling it is an outrage...but this?!
All Comments
If Hansen sues, they get to keep their trademark whether they win or lose. If they don't, they could lose a very valuable trademark. It's a no brainer.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4nrfa1TJaE...
Two Voices Blog Crazy
Don't think I'm hating on breweries. I love a local beer as much as the next guy. but laws are laws. Plus, a boycott on Monster just isn't realistic. You think most people in the nation care about the small brewery? You're wrong. Monster is a damn good enerhy drink and they make way too much money off of other products for a boycott the size of a small college to heart them.
Second, Hansen's federal trademark covers "Monster" and "Monster Energy," not "Vermonster." Meanwhile, Rock Art has a state trademark dating from 2006 for "Vermonster." As Hansen's trademark is limited to Monster and Monster Energy, Rock Art's existing state trademark takes precedent.
Finally, Ben & Jerry's is owned by Unilever, a multi-national corporation with $40.5 in revenue last year alone. That is far more important in Hansen's decision not to take on Ben & Jerry's than their respective industries.
If the reason is to prevent confusion, then why has Hansen not gone after Brooklyn brewing co. for their Monster Ale, or Terrapin for Big Hoppy Monster? Going after one to protect their trademark while leaving the others alone is hypocritical at best.
Hansen attempted to acquire a trademark for Vermonster and found the name already trademarked on the state level, with a federal request pending. They were looking to expand into the alcoholic beverage market, and found a company already there. Hansen would lose a straight-up legal fight, and hopes to outspend Rock Art in the long run.
Support Rock Art in their fight against Hansen.
Let's watch the outcome, and then see who is right.
Even if the trademark is for 'Monster' or 'Monster Energy', it still gives them the right to go after someone like 'Vermonster' because it is similar and under the same catergory of 'light beverage'. Everyone is saying its different because it's an alcoholic drink not an energy drink, but beer is not in the 'alcoholic beverage' category. That category is for wine, not beer. SO, under those terms Vermonster is in a great deal of hurt.
Everyone seems to look past the facts and is focusing on Corporate America screwing over the little guy. Monster has in fact gone for other fish that are larger than they are proving there is no discrimination towards the small brewery. Hansen is currently taking on 99 trial appeal files of one sort or another. They even took on Coke, which has $7.4bil revenue in a quarter. The figures don’t matter. Hansen is looking in the long run, they see an issue with ‘Vermonster’ and are taking care of that issue now, before it gets too late.
The craft beer community is active in the social media space and will do whatever it takes to crush Monster.
hahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh!
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid...
Wow, you're an asshole.
http://www.trygve.com/blog_2009_10.html
It's amazing how stupid people like you are.
Monster Energy does not own a trademark in the beer category. If it feared people associating any of the 30-40 beers out there with the word, "Monster" in it, then they would've trademarked the drink in the beer category a long-ass time ago. Instead they only trademarked it in the fruit and nutritional drinks category. They are going after Rock Art because they want to "some day" enter the alcoholic bev market.
Regardless, trademark law is broken if someone has to endure PR scrutiny for protecting its mark (meaning the public at large doesn't understand the system) but this is a case where Monster has no rights in the beer category and shouldn't be issuing C&D letters to those who do.
If categories don't matter, then Hansen could sue hundreds of companies with the name "Monster" in their names or products because of possible confusion that they are endorsing those products. Everyone would be suing each other and no one would make anything anymore.
See the timeline of this debacle here: http://beernews.org/2009/10/timeline-rock-art-v...
There is no category for beer. Both energy drinks and beer are in the same category - "light beverages" (Category 32, if I recall correctly).
Next...
Case closed.
What community college do you go to?
Hansen chose a common English word and thus their patent infringement claim is a nuisance case. That's why this is an abuse, since they are asserting their rights to control on all associations with the word, EVEN IN ADVANCE of their possible entry into alcoholic beverages. They are bullies, and it's a shame that you can buy legal action of this sort. It should be thrown out of court, and the lawyers fined for bring up a frivolous suit.
-Anderson's Business Law
It may be common, but it has a secondary meaning. Thus, able to be trademarked.
This is semantics then. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&stat...
However Hansen filed their trademarks, it is clear that it was not as an alcoholic beverage. It was clear that Rock Art filed theirs as an alcoholic beverage: "G & S: beer." That or the TESS is omitting pertinent info or misleading in how it is presenting it.
Hansen's trademark is for an energy drink, which is Category 32, light beverages.
Rock Art's trademark is for a beer, which is Category 32, light beverages.
People like you are so stupid.
Stephen, since you seem to know a great deal about Hansen, have they sued Red Robin Restaurants for their MONSTER SHAKE? obviously the same target market who we all can agree would easily be confused, thinking they are getting a MONSTER ENERGY shake. This would certainly seem to be a priority for product name infringement.
Giving proper referencing to the following source: http://www.iprights.com/document.aspx?fn=load&m....
While Hansen won rregarding reputation in Australia (Hansen Beverage Company v Bickford’s (Australia) Pty Ltd, [2008] FCAFC 181), in part, the court found : "Courts can look at the impact of indirect marketing techniques, including the internet, viral
campaigns and websites".
This works on both sides of the fence. There is an overwhelming majority of comments on blogs, etc, indicating there is no chance of confusing the two products. Further, elsewhere, bloggers seemingly attached Hansen refer to the Trade Practices Act.
However, also see:
"http://www.mondaq.com/australia/article.asp?articleid=71306"... the Trade Practices Act is concerned with consumer protection. Consequently, the Act makes no reference to reputation, although case law establishes that the likelihood of consumers being misled or deceived relates to a "significant" or "substantial" proportion of persons within the relevant market. Accordingly, the sufficiency of the reputation that is required to be shown may be less in proceedings under the Trade Practices Act than in proceedings alleging passing off."
Hansen's letter to Rock Art is more concerned with "...a likelihood of confusion and/or dilute the distinctive quality of Hansen's MONSTER marks..." (9/4/2009 letter from Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP to Law office of Christopher Day).
Hansen needs to provide an argument for sufficient reputation in the beer market because the issue is whether a significant number of people would be misled. Since Hansen does not currently sell, distribute, purvey, advertise or market through any means, any G & S: Beer, there is no reputation to blur or mislead.
You can go to Canada:
Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C.V. v. Marcon,
Registrar of Trade-marks, application 1,168,019, C.R.
Folz, August 12, 2008) for more regarding "Predatory trademark filer", which is as some believe is what Hansen's next step is once Rock Art is out of the beer business with Vemonster"
Or to Europe:
Intel Corporation Inc v CPM United Kingdom Limited, where chip maker INTEL claimed dilusion/blurring to the distinctive character of INTEL, the chipmaker by INTELMARK, a telephone marketing company. They both have trademarks respectively.
In "The World Intellectual Property Report BNA" dated 1/09 (ISSN 0952-7613),:
"...In one of the most significant parts of its decision, the ECJ found that the use of the later mark (INTELMARK) is, or would be, detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark requires evidence of a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered as a result of the use of the later mark, or a serious likelihood that such a change would occur in the future...."
This is highly unlikely given that the 1/2 the 18 - 30 male target audience is not of legal age to purchase beer. Look at the blogs all over, and you will easily see evidence that the other half overwhelmingly is not confused. Even among Monster Energy drinkers.
Do your homework.
I stand firm with Rock Art Brewery and am trying to rally my readers. Did a post on it here:
http://www.grapesandgrainsnyc.com/2009/10/david...
Spread the word.
-David
See what they are saying here: http://monsterboycott.wordpress.com
This blog was created to gather all the various blog posts about this issue into one centralized location.