A battle of Claws- Raptors v. Monster Energy

[{"selector":"#anim-42532e4a-1d07-4bd3-9478-c900a7f88dba","keyframes":{"transform":["translate3d(0px, 100%, 0)","translate3d(0px, 0px, 0)"]},"delay":350,"direction":"normal","duration":600,"easing":"cubic-bezier(0.445, 0.05, 0.55, 0.95)","fill":"both"}] A battle of Claws- Raptors v. Monster Energy

[{"selector":"#anim-4943538b-320a-4301-9be0-6991044f1ac5","keyframes":{"transform":["translate3d(-100%, 0px, 0)","translate3d(0px, 0px, 0)"]},"delay":0,"direction":"normal","duration":1000,"easing":"cubic-bezier(0.645, 0.045, 0.355, 1)","fill":"both"}] [{"selector":"#anim-afae1f02-62e7-4747-b013-713918306550","keyframes":{"transform":["translate3d(-100%, 0px, 0)","translate3d(0px, 0px, 0)"]},"delay":100,"direction":"normal","duration":1000,"easing":"cubic-bezier(0.645, 0.045, 0.355, 1)","fill":"both"}] [{"selector":"#anim-100f5e4b-bb90-4901-a9ad-d261eb890f26","keyframes":{"transform":["translate3d(-100%, 0px, 0)","translate3d(0px, 0px, 0)"]},"delay":200,"direction":"normal","duration":1000,"easing":"cubic-bezier(0.645, 0.045, 0.355, 1)","fill":"both"}] NEWS A battle of Claws- Raptors v. Monster Energy By Unnat Akhouri The dispute between ‘Toronto Raptors’ and ‘Monster Energy’, which began in 2015, has ended. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has decided favour of the Toronto Raptors, while Monster Energy will still retain the trademark. The Raptors have been using the logo of 'independent claws beside a basketball' since 1994. However, it modified the logo with 'independent claws within the basketball' to which Monster Energy filed a trademark opposition as per Section 2(d), on the ground that the new logo will create a likelihood of

[{"selector":"#anim-e2e88a5f-4183-4ea0-9c6e-93261b9e92b3","keyframes":{"transform":["translate3d(-100%, 0px, 0)","translate3d(0px, 0px, 0)"]},"delay":0,"direction":"normal","duration":1000,"easing":"cubic-bezier(0.645, 0.045, 0.355, 1)","fill":"both"}] [{"selector":"#anim-123e47b9-2966-4f23-ad4b-46d2bb8ff7ee","keyframes":{"transform":["translate3d(-100%, 0px, 0)","translate3d(0px, 0px, 0)"]},"delay":100,"direction":"normal","duration":1000,"easing":"cubic-bezier(0.645, 0.045, 0.355, 1)","fill":"both"}] [{"selector":"#anim-f5b43ff8-bb15-4a42-ab45-61dafd4cc662","keyframes":{"transform":["translate3d(-100%, 0px, 0)","translate3d(0px, 0px, 0)"]},"delay":200,"direction":"normal","duration":1000,"easing":"cubic-bezier(0.645, 0.045, 0.355, 1)","fill":"both"}] NEWS confusion between the logos of these two companies, owing to the existence of three independent claws in Monster’s logo (M-Claw mark). Along with this, Monster Energy claimed its mark to be sufficiently famous for dilution due to the infringement. The TTAB of USPTO held that although the M-Claw mark was commercially strong and recognized, the marks were significantly different in appearance, meaning and commercial meaning, therefore not leaving scope for any confusion between the two logos. The point of dilution brought up by Monster Energy was ruled out by the board, considering that even though the M-Claw mark was commercially strong, its popularity was limited to the business of sports drinks. By Unnat Akhouri

[{"selector":"#anim-3ab379a1-f4d1-4683-b7b0-a44b73330e7b","keyframes":{"transform":["translate3d(-100%, 0px, 0)","translate3d(0px, 0px, 0)"]},"delay":0,"direction":"normal","duration":1000,"easing":"cubic-bezier(0.645, 0.045, 0.355, 1)","fill":"both"}] [{"selector":"#anim-0edcaa1f-50a9-4985-a19c-966cae2e3bb5","keyframes":{"transform":["translate3d(-100%, 0px, 0)","translate3d(0px, 0px, 0)"]},"delay":100,"direction":"normal","duration":1000,"easing":"cubic-bezier(0.645, 0.045, 0.355, 1)","fill":"both"}] [{"selector":"#anim-4ccb3adc-ed34-4980-b680-94b36456e166","keyframes":{"transform":["translate3d(-100%, 0px, 0)","translate3d(0px, 0px, 0)"]},"delay":200,"direction":"normal","duration":1000,"easing":"cubic-bezier(0.645, 0.045, 0.355, 1)","fill":"both"}] NEWS The general consuming public has to be recognized for being classified as a famous mark, which the M-Claw mark fails to prove, owing to its niche fame. Further, the aspect of commercial strength possessed by Raptor’s prior mark was also discussed, dismissed due to lack of evidence of its prior claw mark’s continuing commercial identity. By Unnat Akhouri