• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees’ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Mad Catz vs. Monster Energy – a litigation about “scratches” and “claws”

12. August 2016

Lately there has been a “cat fight” – a suit between the gaming accessories manufacturer Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. and energy drinks and apparel producer Monster Energy Company. Subject were their marks which both seem to resemble scratches.

In 2012, Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. filed EU Trade Marks (EUTM) applications for the figurative marks below for “clothing footwear and headgear“. Monster Energy Company opposed both applications on the basis of its earlier registrations (also shown below) covering amongst others goods in the same Class. The oppositions were refused by the Opposition Divison and the Board of Appeals (“BoA”) upheld its decisions.  Monster Energy filed further appeals, but they were dismissed aswell by the General Court (GC).

 

 Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. – EUTM Applicant Monster Energy Company – Opponent
EUTM Application No. 011390853011390853

 

EUTM Application No. 011390846

EUTM registration No 6433817

EUTM registration No 7444243

EUTM registration No 7451552

IR (designating the EU) No 1048069

 

Case T-567/15

In Case T-567/15, where the EUTM Application No. 011390853 was opposed, Monster Energy claimed that the BoA had wrongly assessed the similarities between the mark applied for and its earlier mark No. 6433817, which are figurative and not composite marks. They also argued that the BoA wrongly assessed the overall impression created by these marks by stating that the mark applied for might be perceived by the relevant public as scratches, whereas the earlier mark might resemble claws. Lastly, Monster Energy criticised the BoA for finding that there was no likelihood of confusion and for failing to take into account the distinctiveness acquired by the earlier mark through its extensive use for energy drinks and clothing for extreme sports.

The GC did not concur with Monster Energy’s allegations and found no likelihood of confusion in this case. The judges established that Class 25 goods are everyday goods intended for the EU average consumer and that the goods covered by the marks are either identical or similar. They went on to compare the marks at issue.

The Court agreed with the BoA’s assessment of a low degree of visual similarity between the marks, but did admit a visual similarity because both depict three lines. Nevertheless differences were seen in shape, colour, number and position of these lines.

The similarities could not convince the Court, because it did not see the association from the mark to “scratches” as sufficiently obvious. With this background it did not accept Monster Energy’s argument about a degree of conceptual similarity between the marks because of “the message of something aggressive and that something is being ripped open”, aswell.

Once again the GC supported the BoA in it’s decision by not seeing enhanced distinctiveness in their mark. Its reputation for drinks had no impact to the reputation claim, because it has been claimed in relation to Class 25 goods only

 

Case T-429/15

In Case T-429/15 where the EUTM Application No. 011390846 was opposed, the GC also found no likelihood of confusion on the basis of similar reasoning. In this case, the marks were even less visually and phonetically similar given the additional elements “MAD CATZ” included in the mark applied for.

 

 

Source: marques.org | pixabay.com | photobucket.com

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconProduct- and Trademark piracy Tag iconIntellectual Property Rights,  Trademark

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Product- and Trademark piracy

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor? 2. March 2021
  • Suspension of infringement proceedings 1. March 2021
  • Action against a patent already expired 26. February 2021
  • Design protection in China: Amendment 2021 25. February 2021

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

25. January 2021
Thermomix infringement by Lidl: Will Monsieur Cuisine still exist?

Thermomix infringement by Lidl: Will Monsieur Cuisine still exist?

11. December 2020
Illegal videos on Youtube – no disclosure of the e-mail

Illegal videos on Youtube – no disclosure of the e-mail

3. December 2020
Käpt’n Iglo: maritime advertising in court

Käpt’n Iglo: maritime advertising in court

10. November 2020
German UWG: Updating Law is coming!

German UWG: Updating Law is coming!

2. November 2020
3 D Printing is trend – but infringement of IP rights? Part #1 of 2

3 D Printing is trend – but infringement of IP rights? Part #1 of 2

8. September 2020
Amazon not responsible for unfair advertising in Amazon affiliates

Amazon not responsible for unfair advertising in Amazon affiliates

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form