The edition of New & Noteworthy features Monster Energy, who seems to file oppositions against, well, everything. There are also a lot of design mark filings, including the Ohio State’s proceedings against the POISON NUT and others which provide interesting insight into how design marks are prosecuted, monitored, and ultimately opposed/cancelled. Also, for the second week in a row, Sazerac protects itself and its fellow beverage company’s from those trying to trademark what it claims are descriptive phrase. This time they opposed FARM TO TABLE for wine & beer.
Monster Energy Files Oppositions Against MONSTER CLAW for Footwear, MONSTER MIX SCARY TASTES GOOD Design Mark for Yogurt, AB MONSTER THE SCARIEST CORE WORKOUT ALIVE! Design Mark for Exercise Equipment, and “3-Slash” Design Mark GARRA for Jerseys and Other Apparel.
Before the Board has reported on Monster Energy many times, including Gerben Law founder and Before the Board editor Josh Gerben discussing Monster’s oppositions on Fox News. Monster owns dozens of Monster-formative marks, and, it seems to file a trademark opposition against every MONSTER-formative mark that gets published, including an application for MONSTER CLAW for footwear.
It also filed an opposition against a frozen yogurt shop’s application for a design mark using the words MONSTER MIX SCARY TASTES GOOD!
It also filed an opposition against AB MONSTER THE SCARIEST CORE WORKOUT ALIVE! Design Mark for exercise equipment.
Finally, it opposed the “3-slash” design mark GARRA for jerseys and other apparel.
Beverage Company Claims FARM TO TABLE is Descriptive for Beer & Wine
Beverage Company Sazerac filed an opposition against an application for FARM TO TABLE for beer & wine, claiming that the mark is descriptive and that anyone who offers beer or wine that is “farm to table” should be able to use this term descriptively. Sazerac most recently filed a trademark opposition against a DRINK KENTUCKY BOURBEN mark, using a similar argument.
Owner of 2(X)IST Mark for Watches Opposes 2XLUCKY for Jewelry
An application of the mark 2XLUCKY for jewelry was opposed by H. Best, the owner of 2(X)IST for watches. H. Best claims that “Applicant’s Mark, which begins with the number 2 followed by the letter X, is highly similar to Opposer’s 2(X)IST Marks.” The Applicant filed its Answer, stating that