Supreme Court, Judgment of June 5, 2026, Case No. 2023Hu10118
|
Plaintiff's Mark to be Confirmed |
Defendant's Registered "Monster Energy" Trademark |
|
|
|
Case Overview
The Plaintiff, a manufacturer and seller of "Jambaekee Energy Caffeine Health Booster," filed a petition for a negative scope-of-rights confirmation trial seeking confirmation that the mark consisting of a three-line device and characters used on its own product does not fall within the scope of rights of Monster Energy Company's registered trademark. The KIPTAB dismissed the Plaintiff's petition, finding that the two marks and the goods were identical or similar. The Patent Court, however, found that the two marks were not similar and revoked the KIPTAB's trial decision. In response, Monster Energy appealed to the Supreme Court.
Summary of Judgment
The Supreme Court held that, in the Defendant Monster Energy's registered trademark, the device portion consisting of three vertical lines known as the "claw mark" device constitutes the dominant portion, while in the Jambaekee Energy mark, the diagonal three-line device and the character portion each constitute dominant portions. The Court found that, although both devices consist of three jagged lines, they differ in the direction of the lines and their specific shapes, and also differ in the images they evoke. The Court further found that the character portions likewise differ from each other in appearance, concept, and pronunciation, and are thus not similar.
Accordingly, the Court held that the two marks, taken as a whole, are not similar to a degree that would cause confusion as to the source of the goods, and that the Jambaekee Energy mark to be confirmed does not fall within the scope of rights of the Monster Energy registered trademark, thereby affirming the lower court's judgment.