04 July 2025

"Fruchtmonster" Partially Defeated by Opposition from the Trademark "MONSTER"

  • Articles
  • Compliance
  • Legal
  • Data / Technology / IP

The IPI finds a likelihood of confusion between “Fruchtmonster” and “MONSTER” and emphasizes the protection of distinctive brand elements for mass-market goods as well as the high bar for proving brand recognition.

  • Stephanie Ast

    Junior Legal Associate

  • Luca Hitz

    Legal Partner

  • Philipp Stadler

    Senior Legal Associate

In a decision dated March 27, 2025, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) partially upheld an opposition filed by the U.S.-based Monster Energy Company. The energy drink manufacturer successfully challenged the international registration of the trademark “Fruchtmonster”, which had been filed by the German company Dirk Rossmann GmbH for a broad range of food products, beverages, and related services in Switzerland.

The core issue in the proceedings was whether a likelihood of confusion existed between the word mark “Fruchtmonster” and the earlier Swiss figurative mark “MONSTER ((fig.))”. The MONSTER mark is registered in Switzerland, in particular for non-alcoholic beverages, energy drinks, and preparations for making such beverages. The IPI affirmed the similarity between the signs, noting that the word “Monster” is clearly recognizable in both and constitutes the dominant element. The prefix “Frucht” (fruit) at the beginning of the contested sign did not significantly alter the overall impression and could even evoke associations with a potential product line of the MONSTER brand. Both signs evoke the idea of a fantastic creature or intimidating figure, while the younger mark adds a fruit-related component without changing the core meaning. The IPI rejected the argument that the mark could be interpreted qualitatively – as in “monster fruit” – as this would require a reversed interpretation not supported by how the sign is perceived in practice. Nor were the visual elements of the contested mark sufficient to alter its distinctive overall impression or eliminate the similarity.

The IPI placed particular emphasis on the fact that the relevant goods are mass consumer products, where purchasing decisions are often made with a relatively low degree of attention. In such cases, the risk of indirect confusion – such as a perceived connection to a well-known product line – is especially high. The opposition mark, according to the IPI, enjoys at least normal distinctiveness, and its scope of protection is not limited by descriptive elements.

Notably, the IPI did not recognize the alleged notoriety of the MONSTER brand in Switzerland as a matter of fact. Despite MONSTER’s global brand presence and a large portfolio of related marks, the opponent failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish enhanced recognition among the Swiss public. As a result, the scope of protection was limited to that of a trademark with average distinctiveness.

Following this assessment, the trademark “Fruchtmonster” was refused protection for a range of goods – particularly in Classes 5, 29, 30, and 32 – insofar as they are directly related to beverages or drink preparations. However, the mark retained protection for other goods, such as solid food products (e.g., biscuits, dried fruit, soups), and for services in the fields of advertising and retail, where the IPI found no sufficient similarity to the goods or services covered by the MONSTER mark.

This decision underscores that even in compound word marks, the adoption of a dominant element can lead to trademark similarity, especially where the products compete in the same market segment. It also illustrates that internationally recognized brands must submit concrete evidence of their market presence in Switzerland in order to benefit from extended protection. The threshold for establishing notoriety remains high.

Click here to learn more about our expertise:
Back