Monster Energy opposition against “M MONSTER GARAGE” failed in Australia

10 October, 2025

Executive summary

IP Australia rejected Monster Energy’s opposition to TM Storage Place’s composite mark M MONSTER GARAGE. The Hearing Officer found the marks not deceptively similar and held that Monster’s strongest reputation lies in MONSTER ENERGY and its M-icon for energy drinks — not in MONSTER alone for vehicle goods/services. Reputation and other grounds therefore failed.

Background

Applicant: TM Storage Place Pty Ltd — vehicle parts (e.g. wheels), apparel, retail/repair/design services.

Opponent: Monster Energy Company — extensive portfolio for MONSTER, MONSTER ENERGY and the M-icon; significant promotions/sponsorships in Australia.

The applied mark is a composite: a stylised “M”, the words MONSTER and GARAGE, placed on a vehicle grille device.

Key issues — similarity & reputation

Monster relied on multiple grounds under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth):

• s 44 (conflict with earlier marks)
• s 60 (reputation)
• s 42(b) (contrary to law/Australian Consumer Law)
• s 62A (bad faith)

Central questions:

• Whether the applicant’s composite sign is deceptively similar to Monster’s registered marks.
• Whether Monster’s reputation is such that use of the applied mark would be likely to cause confusion.

Monster’s evidence demonstrated strong fame in MONSTER ENERGY and the M-claw icon for energy drinks, but more limited proof that MONSTER alone denotes Monster across vehicle goods/services.

Parties’ arguments

Opponent (Monster Energy)

Relied on prior registrations and extensive sales/sponsorships.

Alleged deceptive similarity and likely confusion; raised ACL and bad-faith angles.

Applicant (TM Storage Place)

Pointed to long-standing use of MONSTER for wheels/tyres (in the Bob Jane T-Marts ecosystem).

Emphasised the distinct composite impression (stylised M + MONSTER + GARAGE + grille device) and a different market context from beverages.

Decision

Section 44 – Not deceptively similar:
Assessed as a whole, the composite elements (stylised M, MONSTER, GARAGE, grille device) create a distinct overall impression. In the vehicle context, “MONSTER” may also carry descriptive/Laudatory connotations (e.g., big/4×4/off-road), weakening similarity.

Section 60 – Reputation:
Monster’s reputation was proven mainly for MONSTER ENERGY and the M-icon in energy drinks. The connection to the applicant’s vehicle goods/services was insufficient; no likely confusion.

Section 42(b) (ACL):
Falls away where s 60 fails — no misleading or deceptive conduct established.

Section 62A (bad faith):
Not made out.

➡️ All grounds failed. The application proceeds to registration.

Lessons for brand owners & advisors

Reputation must match the mark. Fame in a different composite (e.g., MONSTER ENERGY + claw) may not extend to MONSTER alone in another market.

Composite/device marks are assessed as a whole. Additional words/devices (e.g., GARAGE, grille device) can distance an applicant’s sign from earlier marks.

Descriptive/common elements matter. Where a term carries laudatory or descriptive meaning in the field (e.g., “MONSTER” for off-road/vehicle themes), similarity arguments weaken.

Market separation reduces risk. Energy drinks vs vehicle parts/services are not naturally proximate; this lowered confusion.

ACL & bad faith add little if the similarity/reputation nexus is weak.

Maygust’s perspective

Section 60 is powerful, but only when there is tight mark-to-mark alignment and a clear market nexus. For enforcement, anchor evidence to the exact sign and product category in dispute. For applicants, carefully designed composite branding can successfully differentiate from well-known words that take on semi-descriptive meaning in your industry.

Need help with oppositions or Section 60 strategy?

I’m Ngan, a Trade Mark Attorney based in Australia. I support foreign agents and their clients with clearance, filing, oppositions and brand protection across Australia & New Zealand.
Get in touch to discuss your matter. (This article is general information only and not legal advice.)