Last month, Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Vital”), the manufacturer of the Bang energy drink, fell short in its post-trial challenge to a “monster” jury award in favor of Monster Energy Company (“Monster”). ...more
Monster Energy Co. (“Monster Energy”), frequent trademark plaintiff, recently found itself on the receiving end of a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by California company Outdoor Pro Shop, Inc. (“Pro Shop”). Pro Shop’s...more
The August 2021 issue of Sterne Kessler's MarkIt to Market® newsletter discusses Monster Energy's history of trademark disputes in the context of enhancing brand strength, tips for shortening the pendency of trademark filings...more
Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Federal Arbitration Act may lead to many efforts to have arbitration awards thrown out. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages, LLC—and the U.S. Supreme...more
Imagine litigating an infringement case for two years, and after a nine day jury trial, obtaining a jury’s verdict that says you’ve established infringement and awards your client $5,000,000. Then you realize that the jury...more
These rulings will likely impact critical strategic decisions early in international arbitrations. Recent Supreme Court decisions on international arbitration may clarify important issues and make for a more efficient...more
Health plan contracts typically include binding arbitration clauses, and the health plan typically specifies which arbitration association it prefers to use. If the arbitration association makes millions of dollars resolving...more
City Beverages LLC, doing business as Olympic Eagle Distributing, and Monster Energy Co. entered into an agreement under which Monster had exclusive distribution rights for its products in a certain territory for 20 years....more
In Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 7 Cal.5th 781, 792 (2019) the California Supreme Court was tasked with determining “whether counsel’s signature approving a [settlement] agreement as to form and content for his clients’...more
Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, et al., California Sp. Ct., Case No. S251392 (July 11, 2019) - Brief Summary - The California Supreme Court ruled that where an attorney signs a settlement contract under the notation:...more
Attorneys often sign settlement agreements under the words "approved as to form" or "approved as to form and content". In signing the settlement agreement, an attorney may not expect to be bound by the settlement, but should...more
In This Issue: - Cali Cans Kiddie Colas! - CA May Delay Privacy Law Enforcement - Goop Doles Out Settlement for Rotten Egg Claims - Energy Drink Smackdown Begins in Cali Central - Shocking Pics of Partying Rodents Keep...more
On August 13, 2018, the California Fourth District of Appeal held in Monster Energy Company v. Schechter that an attorney who signed his client’s settlement agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content” was...more
In Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, et al. (No. E066267 – 8/13/2018), the Fourth Appellate District reversed the trial court’s partial denial of the attorney defendants’ (“Attorneys”) underlying special motion to strike...more
The plaintiffs hit a snag in long-running litigation against Monster Beverage Corp. when a California federal court denied their motion to certify a class of nationwide consumers numbering in the hundreds of thousands....more
Food for Thought is a review of significant court decisions affecting the food, beverage, dietary supplements and personal care products industry. Although many cases in this edition focus on class certification, others...more
RECENT SIGNIFICANT FILINGS - Courts Lift Stays After FDA Stalls in Giving Guidance on ECJ - Perera v. Pac. Foods of Or., Inc., No. 3:14-cv-2074 (N.D. Cal.): In this putative class action alleging violations of...more
The Beastie Boys can look back on 2014 as a year of good copyright outcomes. The preceding years had seen their music used without authorization in two promotional videos, by Goldieblox and Monster Energy, despite the...more
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently found that a shareholder’s demand for books and records was time-barred, as the alleged basis for a derivative action occurred nearly seven years ago and thus was well beyond any...more
In This Issue: - Recent Significant Developments and Rulings ..Court Dismisses Food Labeling Complaint Because Plaintiff Can’t Be Misled By Something He Didn’t Read ..Chipotle Defeats Class Certification in...more