Monster Energy Company v Mixi Inc

Monster Energy Company (MEC) sought to appeal the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks, which allowed Mixi Inc (Mixi) to extend the protection of its international registration of the trade mark MONSTER STRIKE in Classes 9 and 41 to Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mixi's use of the MONSTER STRIKE mark would deceive or cause confusion in Australia due to MEC's established reputation in its own trade marks. Specifically, the court had to determine if MEC's trade marks, including the M icon and the words MONSTER ENERGY, had acquired a reputation in Australia, and if the promotion of energy drinks by sponsorship and events in the gaming market constituted a reputation in computer games and associated products and services. Additionally, the court examined whether Mixi's use of the opposed mark would be misleading or deceptive under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), and if it would falsely represent an affiliation or sponsorship with MEC.

The Federal Court found that MEC's trade marks had indeed acquired a significant reputation in Australia, particularly among young adults aged 18 to 34. The evidence showed that the M icon, the stylised MONSTER, and the word ENERGY were distinctive and recognisable components of MEC's brand identity, particularly in relation to its energy drinks. The court accepted that MEC's extensive promotional expenditure and substantial sales figures substantiated its reputation in Australia. However, the court found that this reputation did not extend to the goods and services for which Mixi sought registration of the MONSTER STRIKE mark. The court concluded that the sponsorship and events in the gaming market did not establish a sufficient reputation in computer games and associated products and services to justify a finding of confusion or deception. Furthermore, the court held that Mixi's use of the opposed mark would not be misleading or deceptive under the ACL, as it would not falsely represent an affiliation or sponsorship with MEC.

The appeal was dismissed, and MEC was ordered to pay Mixi's costs. The parties were granted leave to apply to vary the costs order and to seek suppression of certain parts of the reasons for judgment. The court also imposed conditions on the disclosure of the reasons for judgment to protect sensitive information.