Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Friday, October 17, 2025

 

Page 1

 

Ninth Circuit:

Trademark Action by Monster Energy Company Against Camping-Gear Manufacturer Revived

Opinion Says Judge Erred in Granting Summary Judgment to Defendants Selling Items Labeled ‘4Monster,’ Finding Genuine Issue as to Confusion

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

 

Depicted are, at left, a close up of a backpack bearing the energy drink Monster’s mark, consisting of a stylized letter “M,” and, at right, camping products sold by the defendant 4Monster. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday reversed a summary judgment order in favor of the defendants relating to trademark infringement claims, finding that there is a genuine issue as to whether a reasonable consumer would confuse the “4Monster” items with those of the plaintiff.

 

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held a District Court judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants accused of infringing Monster Energy Company’s trademarks by selling camping gear bearing the logo “4Monster,” saying that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the likelihood of confusion as to the source.

In a memorandum decision, the court declared that District Court Judge Linda Lopez of the Southern District of California erred in finding that “there is no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law between the…products at issue” based, in part, on the fact that Monster Energy, a Riverside County-based company, is known for selling beverages, not consumer goods like the ones bearing the “4Monster” logo. Monster Energy, too, puts out items such as backpacks, the judges noted.

Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould and Lucy H. Koh, as well as Senior Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman of the Sixth U.S. District Court of Appeals, sitting by designation, signed Wednesday’s opinion, disagreeing with Lopez’s analysis and saying:

“[A] genuine dispute exists as to ‘whether the consuming public is likely somehow to associate [4Monster’s] products with [Monster Energy].’…Because a reasonable juror could find a likelihood of confusion, summary judgment in favor of 4Monster was inappropriate.”

On April 27, 2022, the Corona-based energy drink giant filed suit against Jiangsu Sitouguai Industry Co. Ltd. and Changzhou Haige Microfiber Textile Co. Ltd, two affiliated Chinese companies, after it discovered that the entities were selling camping goods bearing the logo “4Monster” through Amazon and other online vendors, asserting trademark infringement and unfair competition claims.

District Court’s View

On Sept. 23 of last year, Lopez granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that a reasonable consumer was not likely to be confused as to whether the “4Monster” products were associated with the energy drink company. She wrote:

“There is no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law between the 4Monster products at issue—backpacks and towels—and Monster Energy’s beverage products because the two are in entirely different industries.”

She continued:

“The Court accepts that Monster Energy’s mark is strong in the energy beverage industry…, but the Court rejects Monster Energy’s argument that its mark is so strong that it ‘extends even to goods not closely related to Monster’s beverages because purchasers are likely to exercise less care when purchasing products under a famous mark.’

“Although it is undisputed that Monster Energy has spent more than $11.2 billion marketing and promoting its brand worldwide through athlete endorsements, sponsoring athletic competitions, musicians, music festivals, and other events, Monster Energy provides no evidence how this applies to non-beverage products.”

Applying the other factors relevant to the purported trademark infringement, under the 1979 Ninth Circuit decision in AMF v. Sleekcraft Boats, she acknowledged that the green color on both labels appears to be “similar” in the images provided by the plaintiffs but pointed out that “it is undisputed that Defendants sell their products in different colors.”

Disagreeing with Lopez’s analysis, the Ninth Circuit reversed the defense judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Ninth Circuit’s View

Gould, Koh, and Gilman noted that the test for likelihood of confusion is whether a reasonably prudent consumer is likely to be confused as to the origin of the goods and said that motions for summary judgment are infrequently granted in cases alleging such infringement due to the fact-intensive inquiry required.

They said that Sleekcraft and its progeny established that courts are to consider, among other factors, the strength of the mark, the similarities between the labels, the relatedness of the goods, and the proximity of the sales at issue.

Applying the factors, they opined:

“Monster Energy’s marks are conceptually distinctive and therefore ‘trigger the highest degree of trademark protection.’…Monster Energy’s marks are also commercially strong both as to beverage products and non-beverage products….Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Monster Energy, a jury could find that Monster Energy’s wide distribution of non-beverage merchandise goods has created widespread marketplace recognition for Monster Energy’s non-beverage marks.”

Addressing the relatedness of the goods, the judges commented:

“Monster Energy’s non-beverage goods include towels and backpacks that are ‘similar in use and function’ to Defendants’ towel and backpack products….Likewise, a reasonable juror could conclude that the end consumers for both parties’ goods are the general buying public because Monster Energy licenses its marks to retailers. Finally, as to Monster Energy’s beverage goods, a reasonable juror could find that energy drinks are complementary to 4Monster’s camping-related textile goods because Monster Energy markets its beverage products as adjacent to extreme sport and outdoor adventure activities. Thus, the relatedness of goods factor weighs in Monster Energy’s favor.”

Saying that “[b]oth marks prominently feature” the word “Monster” and that “4Monster’s products commonly utilize the exact same shade of green as Monster Energy’s signature trade dress,” and they concluded that “a reasonable juror could find that the marks are confusingly similar.”

Finding that the other factors do not weigh against confusion, they declared that Lopez erred in granting the defense motion.

The case is Monster Energy Company v. Jiangsu Sitouguai Industry Co. Ltd., 24-6521.

 

Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company