Monster Energy Company v Glamco Company, Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 05 November 2018 |
Neutral Citation | [2018] SGHC 238 |
Published date | 09 February 2021 |
Date | 05 November 2018 |
Year | 2018 |
Hearing Date | 24 August 2018 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Just Wang and Penelope Ng (Bird & Bird ATMD LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Tan Zhishu Gillian (Infinitus Law Corporation) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Citation | [2018] SGHC 238 |
Docket Number | Tribunal Appeal No 5 of 2018 |
This is an appeal by Monster Energy Company (the “Appellant”), a company incorporated and existing under the laws of Delaware, United States of America,1 against the decision of the Principal Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks (the “PAR”) in
Popcorn; food products containing (principally) cereals; confectionary; gum sweets; biscuits; bread; sweetmeats (candy); iced cakes; ice cream; non-medicated confectionary in jelly form; chocolate; cookies; rice cakes; chemical seasonings (cooking); sauces; tea; coffee; cocoa products; non-medicated tea based beverages; chocolate based products.
This application was opposed by the Appellant, which is the registered proprietor of the following prior marks in Singapore (collectively, the “Appellant’s Earlier Marks”).4 For ease of reference, I have grouped the Appellant’s Earlier Marks in the same broad categories as the PAR.
I note that the Appellant relies predominantly on the Appellant’s Earlier Monster Marks for its opposition application, both at the hearing before the PAR and the hearing before me. This is on the basis that out of all the Appellant’s Earlier Marks, these are the marks most similar to the Application Mark.5 I agree with the PAR that if the Appellant’s Earlier Monster Marks are found to be dissimilar to the Application Mark, the same would follow for the rest of the Appellant’s Earlier Marks (GD at [20(ii)]). This therefore focuses the inquiry to a comparison between the Application Mark and the Appellant’s Earlier Monster Marks.
Before the PAR, the Appellant based its opposition on the following grounds:
In dismissing the Appellant’s opposition application under s 8(2)(
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
V V Technology Pte Ltd v Twitter, Inc.
...4 SLR 496 (refd) MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 150 (refd) Monster Energy Co v Glamco Co, Ltd [2021] 3 SLR 319 (refd) Monster Energy Co v NBA Properties, Inc [2018] SGIPOS 16 (refd) Morinaga & Co, Ltd v Crown Confectionery, Co, Ltd [2008] SGIPOS 12 (ref......
-
Harvard Club of Singapore v President and Fellows of Harvard College
...to state at the outset that the applicable standard of review is that of a de novo hearing (Monster Energy Company v Glamco Co, Ltd [2018] SGHC 238 at [44] (“Monster Energy”)). Order 87 r 4(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) provides that an appeal from the Trade Mark Regi......
-
TECHNICAL DISTINCTIVENESS AND THE STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH
...2 SLR 1129 (HC); [2017] 2 SLR 308 (CA). 21 Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd v Caesarstone Ceramiche Caesar SpA [2016] 2 SLR 1129 at [26]. 22 [2018] SGHC 238. At the date of writing this decision is pending appeal. 23 Monster Energy Co v Glamco Co, Ltd [2018] SGHC 238 at [47]. 24 [2006] 2 SLR(R) 690......