Blackpink’s follow-up Babymonster in danger of lawsuit with Monster Energy
Blackpink’s subsidiary group, Babymonster, faces potential legal action from Monster Energy over alleged trademark infringement.
The determination of whether two marks are confusingly similar hinges on consumer perception. This principle emerged prominently in the case of Monster Energy Company v. YG Entertainment.
Monster Energy contested YG Entertainment’s trademark registration for the marks BABYMONSTER and BABYMONSTERS, citing confusing similarity and passing off. Monster Energy, a prominent player in the global energy drinks market, clashed with YG Entertainment, a South Korean entertainment agency known for managing artists, including the K-pop girl group BabyMonster.
However, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) ruled in favor of YG Entertainment. The decision emphasized that the marks BABYMONSTER and BABYMONSTERS were not sufficiently similar visually, aurally, or conceptually to cause confusion.
Toh, representing YG Entertainment in the case, highlighted Monster Energy’s argument that the word “BABY” is descriptive and insufficient to differentiate the marks. However, the IP adjudicator deemed it unlikely that consumers would dissect the marks into individual words, favoring YG Entertainment’s position.
Interestingly, the ruling diverged from a similar decision in the European Union. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) interpreted BABYMONSTERS as two distinct words, contrasting with IPOS’s perspective.
Additionally, the case underscored the importance of a mark’s scope of goods and services. Monster Energy’s registrations for “MONSTER” and “MONSTER ENERGY” were limited to beverages, weakening its case against YG Entertainment’s broader range of offerings.
Furthermore, the ruling highlighted the necessity of demonstrating goodwill within specific business domains. Monster Energy’s sponsorship activities in music and sports were deemed insufficient to establish goodwill in the entertainment sector, reinforcing the need for relevant trading activity.
Published on January 8, 2024, the IPOS decision emphasized the lack of evidence supporting Monster Energy’s claim of goodwill in apparel and merchandise, contrasting with its substantial evidence regarding energy drink sales. IP adjudicator Ravindran Muthucumarasamy presided over the case.
*** Other Articles***
– You could visit here to see the Procedure of Trademark in South Korea.
– You can also check the Required documents of filing trademark in South Korea.
Contact AAA IPRIGHT: Email: [email protected]
Or sending your inquiry by filling the form:
