Likelihood of Confusion & Related Goods – Straws vs Energy Drinks

When straws and energy drinks collide: TTAB finds likelihood of confusion in Monster Energy v. Monster Straw. April 2025 trademark decision highlights the importance of trade channels in trademark strategy.

According to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), quite a bit—at least when it comes to branding. In a decision issued on April 14, 2025, the Board sustained an opposition brought by Monster Energy Company, finding that “MONSTER STRAW” for drinking straws was likely to cause confusion with Monster’s existing trademark rights in “MONSTER” for energy drinks and related beverages.

What Do Energy Drinks & Drinking Straws Have In Common?

The case—Monster Energy Company v. Monster Straw Company, LLC, Opposition No. 91250784—is a textbook example of how trade channels, consumer overlap, and complementary goods can weigh heavily in a likelihood of confusion analysis, even when the products themselves seem, at first glance, unrelated.

Background of the Case

Monster Straw Company applied to register the standard character mark MONSTER STRAW for “drinking straws” in Class 21. Monster Energy Company opposed the trademark registration based on Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, arguing that the trademark was confusingly similar to its MONSTER brand of beverages.

Monster Energy owns a wide array of trademark registrations for MONSTER, MONSTER ENERGY, and MONSTER-formative trademarks. These trademarks cover not only energy drinks, but also fruit drinks, soft drinks, beverageware, and other promotional goods. Monster also claimed common law rights in the MONSTER trademarks and asserted ownership of a “family” of MONSTER-related marks.

The heart of the trademark dispute centered on whether consumers encountering the trademark MONSTER STRAW would mistakenly believe it was associated with Monster Energy’s famous beverage brand.  In other words, can energy drinks in trademark class 32 and drinking straws in trademark class 21 be considered related goods that travel in similar trade channels?

TTAB’s Decision and Analysis

The Board analyzed the case under the DuPont factors, a well-established legal framework used to assess the likelihood of confusion between two marks. While the opinion touched on several factors, a few played a decisive role in the outcome.

Similarity of the Marks

The TTAB found the trademarks MONSTER and MONSTER STRAW to be “highly similar in sound, appearance, connotation and commercial impression.” Since “STRAW” was disclaimed (as a descriptive term), the word “MONSTER” dominated the applied-for trademark. Because Monster Energy’s registered trademark is simply MONSTER, and “MONSTER” is the first—and most prominent—element of the applicant’s trademark, the Board held that this factor weighed heavily in favor of Monster Energy.

Strength of the MONSTER Mark

Monster Energy presented significant evidence of its commercial success, noting that it sells its MONSTER-branded energy drinks in over 400,000 retail locations, with billions of dollars in annual revenue and a $7 billion marketing spend over two decades. However, much of the company’s branding centers on “MONSTER ENERGY” rather than “MONSTER” alone.

While the Board found “MONSTER” to be conceptually strong—an arbitrary term for beverages—it concluded that Monster Energy hadn’t established that the standalone “MONSTER” trademark (without ENERGY or other elements) was commercially strong or famous. As a result, the Board found that MONSTER was entitled to the ordinary scope of protection given to arbitrary marks, but not a heightened level based on fame.

Relatedness of the Goods

This factor ultimately carried the most weight. Although straws and beverages are different products, the Board noted that they are often used together. Monster Energy offered evidence that its drinks are consumed through straws in bars, restaurants, and convenience stores. It even submitted photos of a MONSTER-branded Slurpee product offered at 7-Eleven in 2008 and 2009 that was served with a straw.

Drawing on this “complementary goods” logic, the Board concluded that the products were sufficiently related for trademark purposes. As the opinion explained, “Where evidence shows that the goods at issue have complementary uses, and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes, such goods have generally been found to be sufficiently related such that confusion would be likely.”

This line of reasoning may surprise business owners. Straws and drinks aren’t the same product category—but they’re linked in use, and that linkage was enough to support the Board’s finding of relatedness.

Trade Channels and Purchaser Overlap

The Board also emphasized that both parties’ goods were low-cost consumer items sold to the general public through overlapping trade channels. Because neither trademark application restricted trade channels or limited purchasers, the Board assumed that both straws and drinks could be sold in the same places—like convenience stores, restaurants, and retail outlets such as Walmart.

The Board cited testimony showing that both MONSTER drinks and MONSTER STRAW products had been marketed through overlapping outlets. This overlap supported a finding that consumers might believe the products originated from the same source or brand family.

Purchasing Conditions and Consumer Sophistication

Both straws and energy drinks are inexpensive items typically purchased on impulse. The Board reasoned that consumers would not exercise a high degree of care when buying either product. This favored a finding of confusion, especially given the similar branding.

The “Family of Marks” Argument

Monster Energy argued that it owned a “family” of MONSTER-formative marks (such as MONSTER ENERGY, JAVA MONSTER, and MONSTER REHAB). Had the Board accepted this argument, it would have broadened the scope of protection for the MONSTER element across a wide range of goods.

But the Board wasn’t convinced. It found the testimony and evidence of family use to be vague and conclusory. While Monster Energy clearly had multiple MONSTER-formative trademark registrations, the Board required more specific evidence that these marks were promoted together in a way that consumers would perceive them as part of a recognizable family. Without that showing, the Board based its likelihood of confusion analysis on the individual MONSTER mark, not on a broader family.

The Final Ruling

After weighing all the factors, the Board concluded that confusion was likely. It sustained Monster Energy’s opposition, blocking the registration of MONSTER STRAW. The decision is non-precedential, meaning it does not bind future TTAB panels, but it is a useful case study in how the Board treats complementary goods and overlapping trade channels.

Commentary: When Is a Straw Too Close to an Energy Drink?

This case is a reminder that trademark law doesn’t require two products to be the same—or even competitive—for confusion to occur. It’s enough if the products are related in a way that creates a plausible impression of common origin in the mind of the consumer.

The Board’s focus on how energy drinks and straws are used together, sold through the same outlets, and marketed to the same types of consumers shows how important trade channel evidence can be. Even a seemingly narrow product, like a plastic straw, can be swept into a broader brand protection net if its use overlaps with a well-known brand’s core offerings.

It also highlights that a brand’s marketing strategy—and how goods appear in the marketplace—can shape the outcome of a trademark dispute just as much as the wording of the mark itself.

Takeaways for Business Owners and Trademark Applicants

• Don’t assume your goods are unrelated just because they belong to different industries. Straws and beverages may sound different, but their practical relationship mattered to the Board. If your goods are used together with goods sold by others under a famous brand, your mark may face scrutiny.
• Trade channels and points of sale matter. When performing a trademark search—or evaluating a potential conflict—consider not just the product, but where and how it’s sold. Are both products sold at Walmart? Restaurants? Online? The greater the overlap, the greater the risk.
• Trademark searches should go beyond identical goods. When evaluating whether a proposed mark is clear to register, it’s not enough to avoid exact matches for identical products. Consider marks that may be used for goods that interact with or complement your own.
• Fame and strength are not the same thing. Even well-known companies like Monster Energy may not be able to prove their mark is famous in every form. Fame requires detailed evidence. But even absent fame, arbitrary marks like MONSTER can receive broad protection when used in overlapping markets.
• Pay attention to how your products are used by consumers. Complementary use—such as a straw being used to drink an energy beverage—can tip the scale in favor of finding relatedness between goods.

Conclusion

The Monster Energy v. Monster Straw decision underscores a key lesson in trademark law: relatedness isn’t just about the products themselves—it’s about how, where, and to whom they are sold.

For brand owners, this case serves as a useful reminder to think strategically, not just legally, about trademarks. Protecting your brand isn’t just about filing a name—it’s about understanding how that name lives and breathes in the marketplace.

If you’re considering a new trademark or facing a potential conflict, consult with our trademark attorneys. A thoughtful clearance strategy today can prevent costly trademark disputes tomorrow.