Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Monster cable aholes at it again
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:e46dnUvcSehpYJnVnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@earthlink,com ...
> Steve wrote:
>
>> There was a story going around a few years ago that Monster Cable was
>> going after ANY company that used the word Monster in their name or
>> product - including Monster,com and the Monsters, Inc movie. But the
>> story was bogus. In fact, Monster Cable wrote a letter (which was
>> posted on their website, IIRC) making it clear that they were NOT
>> involved in any litigation or threatened litigation of that nature.
>>
>> BTW, I have no business relationship with Monster Cable, and generally
>> stay away from their products, which I find ridiculously overpriced.
>>
>> --Steve
>
> Really, so how are we to interpret this list of trademark claims and
> lawsuits etc. Monster Cable Products, Inc. has filed? Why else would they
> be suing Monster Mini Golf if not over the name?
>
> http :// ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&pno=&qs=monster+cable+products&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=
>
It's a fake dot GOV web site. :-)
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:e46dnUvcSehpYJnVnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@earthlink,com ...
> Steve wrote:
>
>> There was a story going around a few years ago that Monster Cable was
>> going after ANY company that used the word Monster in their name or
>> product - including Monster,com and the Monsters, Inc movie. But the
>> story was bogus. In fact, Monster Cable wrote a letter (which was
>> posted on their website, IIRC) making it clear that they were NOT
>> involved in any litigation or threatened litigation of that nature.
>>
>> BTW, I have no business relationship with Monster Cable, and generally
>> stay away from their products, which I find ridiculously overpriced.
>>
>> --Steve
>
> Really, so how are we to interpret this list of trademark claims and
> lawsuits etc. Monster Cable Products, Inc. has filed? Why else would they
> be suing Monster Mini Golf if not over the name?
>
> http :// ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&pno=&qs=monster+cable+products&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=
>
It's a fake dot GOV web site. :-)
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
On 15 Apr 2008, "DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in
alt.guitar.bass:
> Really, so how are we to interpret this list of trademark claims
> and lawsuits etc. Monster Cable Products, Inc. has filed? Why
> else would they be suing Monster Mini Golf if not over the name?
>
> http :// ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&pno=&qs=monster+cable+pro
> ducts&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=
The story I remember was of Monster Cable suing Snowmonsters, a
children's ski club. At the time, I wrote an indignant letter to
Monster Cable, and they sent me back a message from their CEO that
supposedly explains their side of the story.
In part...
================
Monster Wrongfully Accused:
A Note from Noel Lee, CEO of Monster Cable Products.
...
Before you form any negative impressions of my company or how I have
directed it, permit me to straighten out some of the misconceptions.
1) We do not have any trademark infringement lawsuits pending, and we
do not object or take action against businesses just because they sell
products that have "Monster" in their names. If we did, we would never
be able to run our business, not to mention the financial burden would
crush us. We have better things to do than spend this kind of money
and time.
2) There are over 1,100 registered "Monster" trademarks in the U.S.
Patent and Trademark office, and probably hundreds more that are
unregistered. We are not suing them or taking any action against them
and did not do so when they filed the tradmarks. These marks have been
allowed by the Trademark Office, just as our 50+ marks in the various
classes listed below. Unless they interfere with any of these marks or
dilute the "Monster" brand, we don't object.
3) We have not sued or filed actions against the hundreds of companies
that are using the word Monster. So if anyone is representing this to
you, they are not right and should be corrected.
What I think has happened, is people are misinterpreting the U.S.
Patent and Trademark office's database. When you do a search on the
USPTO database for Monster, it brings up a bunch of records dating back
to 1983; like a Google search does. It appears people are seeing the
search results and assuming they are lawsuits. They are not lawsuits.
In fact, most of the search results are duplicate listings or merely
requests for 60 day extensions (which allow us to do further
investigation to see if there are any potential conflicts). The
database shows Monster has opposed about 80 trademarks over the last
twenty five years. That's about 4 trademark oppositions a year, which
isn't very many for a company that has over 50+ Monster trademarks and
is a famous brand.
4) Trademark registrations and trademark oppositions are decided by
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, not us. Even if we do object to
a particular filing to register a trademark, it is the Trademark office
that determines if the business or person filing for the trademark
registration is entitled to it, NOT US.
5) Our examination and investigation of businesses filing trademarks
with our name Monster is normal processes for any company having a
trademark that they want to protect. We know we don't own the word
Monster; however like any other trademark holder we do have the right
and need to protect our Monster brand when it is in danger of being
diluted, tarnished, or infringed.
6) The federal trademark law says that we are required to police our
marks and enforce them or we will lose them, or risk weakening them.
We didn't make these rules. Congress and years of Supreme Court
rulings have determined the rules of the game. This type of protection
is authorized by federal and state statutes (referred to as anti-
dilution laws) designed to prevent the weakening of a famous mark's
reputation. For more information, you may want to check out: Nolo
Press
( http :// www .nolo,com /lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/E24CD50D-14DE-
4364-AC615684D93E6CBE/catID/D8932879-DC34-43DF-
BF65FC92D55FEE5D#18C5EF1D-16AD-4F2A-B7EF7D691972BE58)
7) Anyone can use a trademark without having the trademark registered
in the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, as long as it doesn't infringe
or dilute someone else's trademark. This is referred to as a common
law trademark. There are many trademarks that exist under common law
rights.
In the case of Snow Monsters, we have NEVER sued them, and we are not
trying to harm their company. I think that their products are great and
don't cause us any problems, I have written them and told them so.
They are also using the word "monster" for characters, not as a brand,
which is how we use Monster. Please, see the list of our trademarks
below that I have provided for you.
8) I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, and would
never engage in a lawsuit that was frivolous. They are a waste of the
public's money, and the time of the parties involved. In fact, the
courts do not allow "frivolous" lawsuits to proceed. The courts have
procedural safeguards to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, as well as
penalties (like Rule 11) that can be levied against attorneys and
parties who bring such suits. We have never been accused by a court of
filing frivolous lawsuits.
9) The newspaper articles and other rumors that said we sued the
Chicago Bears, Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park, or a Cajun restaurant are
all untrue. We have NEVER filed any lawsuits or other actions against
them. Don't just take our word for it, do a search of the court
records, and the USPTO database, and we can guarantee that you will
find that we have not sued (or even filed trademark oppositions)
against these companies.
On 15 Apr 2008, "DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in
alt.guitar.bass:
> Really, so how are we to interpret this list of trademark claims
> and lawsuits etc. Monster Cable Products, Inc. has filed? Why
> else would they be suing Monster Mini Golf if not over the name?
>
> http :// ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&pno=&qs=monster+cable+pro
> ducts&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=
The story I remember was of Monster Cable suing Snowmonsters, a
children's ski club. At the time, I wrote an indignant letter to
Monster Cable, and they sent me back a message from their CEO that
supposedly explains their side of the story.
In part...
================
Monster Wrongfully Accused:
A Note from Noel Lee, CEO of Monster Cable Products.
...
Before you form any negative impressions of my company or how I have
directed it, permit me to straighten out some of the misconceptions.
1) We do not have any trademark infringement lawsuits pending, and we
do not object or take action against businesses just because they sell
products that have "Monster" in their names. If we did, we would never
be able to run our business, not to mention the financial burden would
crush us. We have better things to do than spend this kind of money
and time.
2) There are over 1,100 registered "Monster" trademarks in the U.S.
Patent and Trademark office, and probably hundreds more that are
unregistered. We are not suing them or taking any action against them
and did not do so when they filed the tradmarks. These marks have been
allowed by the Trademark Office, just as our 50+ marks in the various
classes listed below. Unless they interfere with any of these marks or
dilute the "Monster" brand, we don't object.
3) We have not sued or filed actions against the hundreds of companies
that are using the word Monster. So if anyone is representing this to
you, they are not right and should be corrected.
What I think has happened, is people are misinterpreting the U.S.
Patent and Trademark office's database. When you do a search on the
USPTO database for Monster, it brings up a bunch of records dating back
to 1983; like a Google search does. It appears people are seeing the
search results and assuming they are lawsuits. They are not lawsuits.
In fact, most of the search results are duplicate listings or merely
requests for 60 day extensions (which allow us to do further
investigation to see if there are any potential conflicts). The
database shows Monster has opposed about 80 trademarks over the last
twenty five years. That's about 4 trademark oppositions a year, which
isn't very many for a company that has over 50+ Monster trademarks and
is a famous brand.
4) Trademark registrations and trademark oppositions are decided by
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, not us. Even if we do object to
a particular filing to register a trademark, it is the Trademark office
that determines if the business or person filing for the trademark
registration is entitled to it, NOT US.
5) Our examination and investigation of businesses filing trademarks
with our name Monster is normal processes for any company having a
trademark that they want to protect. We know we don't own the word
Monster; however like any other trademark holder we do have the right
and need to protect our Monster brand when it is in danger of being
diluted, tarnished, or infringed.
6) The federal trademark law says that we are required to police our
marks and enforce them or we will lose them, or risk weakening them.
We didn't make these rules. Congress and years of Supreme Court
rulings have determined the rules of the game. This type of protection
is authorized by federal and state statutes (referred to as anti-
dilution laws) designed to prevent the weakening of a famous mark's
reputation. For more information, you may want to check out: Nolo
Press
( http :// www .nolo,com /lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/E24CD50D-14DE-
4364-AC615684D93E6CBE/catID/D8932879-DC34-43DF-
BF65FC92D55FEE5D#18C5EF1D-16AD-4F2A-B7EF7D691972BE58)
7) Anyone can use a trademark without having the trademark registered
in the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, as long as it doesn't infringe
or dilute someone else's trademark. This is referred to as a common
law trademark. There are many trademarks that exist under common law
rights.
In the case of Snow Monsters, we have NEVER sued them, and we are not
trying to harm their company. I think that their products are great and
don't cause us any problems, I have written them and told them so.
They are also using the word "monster" for characters, not as a brand,
which is how we use Monster. Please, see the list of our trademarks
below that I have provided for you.
8) I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, and would
never engage in a lawsuit that was frivolous. They are a waste of the
public's money, and the time of the parties involved. In fact, the
courts do not allow "frivolous" lawsuits to proceed. The courts have
procedural safeguards to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, as well as
penalties (like Rule 11) that can be levied against attorneys and
parties who bring such suits. We have never been accused by a court of
filing frivolous lawsuits.
9) The newspaper articles and other rumors that said we sued the
Chicago Bears, Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park, or a Cajun restaurant are
all untrue. We have NEVER filed any lawsuits or other actions against
them. Don't just take our word for it, do a search of the court
records, and the USPTO database, and we can guarantee that you will
find that we have not sued (or even filed trademark oppositions)
against these companies.
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
On Apr 15, 3:42 pm, Nil <rednoise+n...@REMOVETHIScomcast,net > wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2008, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> alt.guitar.bass:
>
> > Really, so how are we to interpret this list of trademark claims
> > and lawsuits etc. Monster Cable Products, Inc. has filed? Why
> > else would they be suing Monster Mini Golf if not over the name?
>
> > http :// ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qtv&pno=&qs=monster+cable+pro
> > ducts&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn>
> The story I remember was of Monster Cable suing Snowmonsters, a
> children's ski club. At the time, I wrote an indignant letter to
> Monster Cable, and they sent me back a message from their CEO that
> supposedly explains their side of the story.
>
> In part...
>
> ===============>
> Monster Wrongfully Accused:
> A Note from Noel Lee, CEO of Monster Cable Products.
>
> ...
>
> Before you form any negative impressions of my company or how I have
> directed it, permit me to straighten out some of the misconceptions.
>
> 1) We do not have any trademark infringement lawsuits pending, and we
> do not object or take action against businesses just because they sell
> products that have "Monster" in their names. If we did, we would never
> be able to run our business, not to mention the financial burden would
> crush us. We have better things to do than spend this kind of money
> and time.
>
> 2) There are over 1,100 registered "Monster" trademarks in the U.S.
> Patent and Trademark office, and probably hundreds more that are
> unregistered. We are not suing them or taking any action against them
> and did not do so when they filed the tradmarks. These marks have been
> allowed by the Trademark Office, just as our 50+ marks in the various
> classes listed below. Unless they interfere with any of these marks or
> dilute the "Monster" brand, we don't object.
>
> 3) We have not sued or filed actions against the hundreds of companies
> that are using the word Monster. So if anyone is representing this to
> you, they are not right and should be corrected.
>
> What I think has happened, is people are misinterpreting the U.S.
> Patent and Trademark office's database. When you do a search on the
> USPTO database for Monster, it brings up a bunch of records dating back
> to 1983; like a Google search does. It appears people are seeing the
> search results and assuming they are lawsuits. They are not lawsuits.
>
> In fact, most of the search results are duplicate listings or merely
> requests for 60 day extensions (which allow us to do further
> investigation to see if there are any potential conflicts). The
> database shows Monster has opposed about 80 trademarks over the last
> twenty five years. That's about 4 trademark oppositions a year, which
> isn't very many for a company that has over 50+ Monster trademarks and
> is a famous brand.
>
> 4) Trademark registrations and trademark oppositions are decided by
> the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, not us. Even if we do object to
> a particular filing to register a trademark, it is the Trademark office
> that determines if the business or person filing for the trademark
> registration is entitled to it, NOT US.
>
> 5) Our examination and investigation of businesses filing trademarks
> with our name Monster is normal processes for any company having a
> trademark that they want to protect. We know we don't own the word
> Monster; however like any other trademark holder we do have the right
> and need to protect our Monster brand when it is in danger of being
> diluted, tarnished, or infringed.
>
> 6) The federal trademark law says that we are required to police our
> marks and enforce them or we will lose them, or risk weakening them.
> We didn't make these rules. Congress and years of Supreme Court
> rulings have determined the rules of the game. This type of protection
> is authorized by federal and state statutes (referred to as anti-
> dilution laws) designed to prevent the weakening of a famous mark's
> reputation. For more information, you may want to check out: Nolo
> Press
> ( http :// www .nolo,com /lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/E24CD50D-14DE-
> 4364-AC615684D93E6CBE/catID/D8932879-DC34-43DF-
> BF65FC92D55FEE5D#18C5EF1D-16AD-4F2A-B7EF7D691972BE58)
>
> 7) Anyone can use a trademark without having the trademark registered
> in the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, as long as it doesn't infringe
> or dilute someone else's trademark. This is referred to as a common
> law trademark. There are many trademarks that exist under common law
> rights.
>
> In the case of Snow Monsters, we have NEVER sued them, and we are not
> trying to harm their company. I think that their products are great and
> don't cause us any problems, I have written them and told them so.
> They are also using the word "monster" for characters, not as a brand,
> which is how we use Monster. Please, see the list of our trademarks
> below that I have provided for you.
>
> 8) I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, and would
> never engage in a lawsuit that was frivolous. They are a waste of the
> public's money, and the time of the parties involved. In fact, the
> courts do not allow "frivolous" lawsuits to proceed. The courts have
> procedural safeguards to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, as well as
> penalties (like Rule 11) that can be levied against attorneys and
> parties who bring such suits. We have never been accused by a court of
> filing frivolous lawsuits.
>
> 9) The newspaper articles and other rumors that said we sued the
> Chicago Bears, Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park, or a Cajun restaurant are
> all untrue. We have NEVER filed any lawsuits or other actions against
> them. Don't just take our word for it, do a search of the court
> records, and the USPTO database, and we can guarantee that you will
> find that we have not sued (or even filed trademark oppositions)
> against these companies.
This letter from the asshole CEO of Monster throws out a lot of
statements that he's not suing anyone, doesn't plan to sue anyone,
blah, blah, blah, but that's not the issue or the claim. The issue is
that he bullies and intimidates small companies into either giving him
a chunk of their profits, buying in to the name, or forcing them to
change their identities. He doesn't address that in his letter. He's a
bully, and his products are good but no better than other higher end
products.
I haven't bought a Monster product in years, nor will I.
On Apr 15, 3:42 pm, Nil <rednoise+n...@REMOVETHIScomcast,net > wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2008, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> alt.guitar.bass:
>
> > Really, so how are we to interpret this list of trademark claims
> > and lawsuits etc. Monster Cable Products, Inc. has filed? Why
> > else would they be suing Monster Mini Golf if not over the name?
>
> > http :// ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qtv&pno=&qs=monster+cable+pro
> > ducts&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn>
> The story I remember was of Monster Cable suing Snowmonsters, a
> children's ski club. At the time, I wrote an indignant letter to
> Monster Cable, and they sent me back a message from their CEO that
> supposedly explains their side of the story.
>
> In part...
>
> ===============>
> Monster Wrongfully Accused:
> A Note from Noel Lee, CEO of Monster Cable Products.
>
> ...
>
> Before you form any negative impressions of my company or how I have
> directed it, permit me to straighten out some of the misconceptions.
>
> 1) We do not have any trademark infringement lawsuits pending, and we
> do not object or take action against businesses just because they sell
> products that have "Monster" in their names. If we did, we would never
> be able to run our business, not to mention the financial burden would
> crush us. We have better things to do than spend this kind of money
> and time.
>
> 2) There are over 1,100 registered "Monster" trademarks in the U.S.
> Patent and Trademark office, and probably hundreds more that are
> unregistered. We are not suing them or taking any action against them
> and did not do so when they filed the tradmarks. These marks have been
> allowed by the Trademark Office, just as our 50+ marks in the various
> classes listed below. Unless they interfere with any of these marks or
> dilute the "Monster" brand, we don't object.
>
> 3) We have not sued or filed actions against the hundreds of companies
> that are using the word Monster. So if anyone is representing this to
> you, they are not right and should be corrected.
>
> What I think has happened, is people are misinterpreting the U.S.
> Patent and Trademark office's database. When you do a search on the
> USPTO database for Monster, it brings up a bunch of records dating back
> to 1983; like a Google search does. It appears people are seeing the
> search results and assuming they are lawsuits. They are not lawsuits.
>
> In fact, most of the search results are duplicate listings or merely
> requests for 60 day extensions (which allow us to do further
> investigation to see if there are any potential conflicts). The
> database shows Monster has opposed about 80 trademarks over the last
> twenty five years. That's about 4 trademark oppositions a year, which
> isn't very many for a company that has over 50+ Monster trademarks and
> is a famous brand.
>
> 4) Trademark registrations and trademark oppositions are decided by
> the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, not us. Even if we do object to
> a particular filing to register a trademark, it is the Trademark office
> that determines if the business or person filing for the trademark
> registration is entitled to it, NOT US.
>
> 5) Our examination and investigation of businesses filing trademarks
> with our name Monster is normal processes for any company having a
> trademark that they want to protect. We know we don't own the word
> Monster; however like any other trademark holder we do have the right
> and need to protect our Monster brand when it is in danger of being
> diluted, tarnished, or infringed.
>
> 6) The federal trademark law says that we are required to police our
> marks and enforce them or we will lose them, or risk weakening them.
> We didn't make these rules. Congress and years of Supreme Court
> rulings have determined the rules of the game. This type of protection
> is authorized by federal and state statutes (referred to as anti-
> dilution laws) designed to prevent the weakening of a famous mark's
> reputation. For more information, you may want to check out: Nolo
> Press
> ( http :// www .nolo,com /lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/E24CD50D-14DE-
> 4364-AC615684D93E6CBE/catID/D8932879-DC34-43DF-
> BF65FC92D55FEE5D#18C5EF1D-16AD-4F2A-B7EF7D691972BE58)
>
> 7) Anyone can use a trademark without having the trademark registered
> in the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, as long as it doesn't infringe
> or dilute someone else's trademark. This is referred to as a common
> law trademark. There are many trademarks that exist under common law
> rights.
>
> In the case of Snow Monsters, we have NEVER sued them, and we are not
> trying to harm their company. I think that their products are great and
> don't cause us any problems, I have written them and told them so.
> They are also using the word "monster" for characters, not as a brand,
> which is how we use Monster. Please, see the list of our trademarks
> below that I have provided for you.
>
> 8) I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, and would
> never engage in a lawsuit that was frivolous. They are a waste of the
> public's money, and the time of the parties involved. In fact, the
> courts do not allow "frivolous" lawsuits to proceed. The courts have
> procedural safeguards to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, as well as
> penalties (like Rule 11) that can be levied against attorneys and
> parties who bring such suits. We have never been accused by a court of
> filing frivolous lawsuits.
>
> 9) The newspaper articles and other rumors that said we sued the
> Chicago Bears, Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park, or a Cajun restaurant are
> all untrue. We have NEVER filed any lawsuits or other actions against
> them. Don't just take our word for it, do a search of the court
> records, and the USPTO database, and we can guarantee that you will
> find that we have not sued (or even filed trademark oppositions)
> against these companies.
This letter from the asshole CEO of Monster throws out a lot of
statements that he's not suing anyone, doesn't plan to sue anyone,
blah, blah, blah, but that's not the issue or the claim. The issue is
that he bullies and intimidates small companies into either giving him
a chunk of their profits, buying in to the name, or forcing them to
change their identities. He doesn't address that in his letter. He's a
bully, and his products are good but no better than other higher end
products.
I haven't bought a Monster product in years, nor will I.
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
On 15 Apr 2008, BW <barrybassist@yahoo,com > wrote in
alt.guitar.bass:
> This letter from the asshole CEO of Monster throws out a lot of
> statements that he's not suing anyone, doesn't plan to sue anyone,
> blah, blah, blah, but that's not the issue or the claim. The issue
> is that he bullies and intimidates small companies into either
> giving him a chunk of their profits, buying in to the name, or
> forcing them to change their identities.
Can you cite an example? The matter that prompted this letter seems to
have been resolved amicably, if the letter from Snowmonsters is to be
taken at face value. I can post that letter here, too, if anyone's
interested.
There's a lot of smoke about this reputation, so I would expect to see
actual fire. Where is it?
> I haven't bought a Monster product in years, nor will I.
I've never bought any.
On 15 Apr 2008, BW <barrybassist@yahoo,com > wrote in
alt.guitar.bass:
> This letter from the asshole CEO of Monster throws out a lot of
> statements that he's not suing anyone, doesn't plan to sue anyone,
> blah, blah, blah, but that's not the issue or the claim. The issue
> is that he bullies and intimidates small companies into either
> giving him a chunk of their profits, buying in to the name, or
> forcing them to change their identities.
Can you cite an example? The matter that prompted this letter seems to
have been resolved amicably, if the letter from Snowmonsters is to be
taken at face value. I can post that letter here, too, if anyone's
interested.
There's a lot of smoke about this reputation, so I would expect to see
actual fire. Where is it?
> I haven't bought a Monster product in years, nor will I.
I've never bought any.
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
Nil wrote:
> There's a lot of smoke about this reputation, so I would expect to see
> actual fire. Where is it?
http :// www .sfgate,com /cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/08/BUG1J9N3C61.DTL&type=business/
Monster fiercely protects its name
Cable products company sues those who use M-word
A monster by any other name might get you sued by Monster Cable Products
Inc.
The Brisbane maker of electronics accessories has filed lawsuits and
trademark infringement claims against dozens of companies for using
"monster'' in names, products or services.
The TV series "Monster Garage'' and the Monster Seats above Fenway Park's
left field wall have been targeted in what Monster Cable officials say is an
aggressive legal strategy to protect the firm's good name.
"We have an obligation to protect our trademark; otherwise we'd lose it, ''
said Monster Cable founder Noel Lee.
Critics like Victor Petrucci, founder of a small, family-owned online
clothing store called MonsterVintage,com in Camas, Wash., say Monster Cable
is going overboard.
"They strong-arm anybody who uses the word 'monster,' '' said Petrucci, who
is fighting a lawsuit that Monster Cable filed against his firm in August.
"I sell used clothing. How can I damage them at all?''
Petrucci drew public attention with a big protest sign attached to a truck
outside the main parking lot during a 49ers game shortly after Monster Cable
bought the naming rights to Candlestick Park in San Francisco.
Monster Cable legal counsel David Tognotti said it has registered more than
50 trademarks covering a wide range of products, including furniture, food
and clothing. "We've spent millions of dollars as well as countless hours
building our brand,'' he said.
Tognotti is preparing for a trial against the Discovery Channel over the
popular TV series "Monster Garage,'' which he claims uses images of
"provocative women'' and an iron cross logo that could tarnish Monster
Cable's image.
With MonsterVintage, Tognotti said he tried to stop Petrucci's use of a logo
that is very similar to Monster Cable's.
"We called them and said, 'We'd like you to stop,' '' Tognotti said. "He
continued to ignore us, so we filed a lawsuit in federal court.''
According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and court records, Monster
Cable has gone after other notable monsters:
-- Walt Disney Co., which distributed Pixar Animation Studios' hit film
"Monsters, Inc.''
-- Bally Gaming International Inc. for its Monster Slots.
-- Hansen Beverage Co. for a Monster Energy drink.
-- The Chicago Bears, whose nickname is "Monsters of the Midway.''
In most cases, Monster Cable has been able to work out a settlement or
nominal licensing agreement, Tognotti said.
For example, a deal is in the works with the owner of the Fenway Park
Monster Seats trademark that will result in some seats being made available
for charitable purposes at Monster and Fenway parks.
In 1999, Monster Cable sued the company it has been most mistaken for,
Monster,com ., the Maynard, Mass., online job-hunting site. The companies
settled in February 2000, but agreed to keep the terms confidential.
However, trademark law attorney Anthony Malutta, who once defended a client
in a case filed by Monster Cable, noted that Monster,com 's site has a link
to Monster Cable, not the other way around.
Monster Cable's policing of its trademark strengthens its legal rights and
scares off would-be monsters, said Malutta, of Townsend and Townsend and
Crew LLP of San Francisco.
However, that tactic might "hurt them if they go after everybody who uses
'monster,' like a little clothing company that really is not a source of
confusion at all,'' he said.
Nil wrote:
> There's a lot of smoke about this reputation, so I would expect to see
> actual fire. Where is it?
http :// www .sfgate,com /cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/08/BUG1J9N3C61.DTL&type=business/
Monster fiercely protects its name
Cable products company sues those who use M-word
A monster by any other name might get you sued by Monster Cable Products
Inc.
The Brisbane maker of electronics accessories has filed lawsuits and
trademark infringement claims against dozens of companies for using
"monster'' in names, products or services.
The TV series "Monster Garage'' and the Monster Seats above Fenway Park's
left field wall have been targeted in what Monster Cable officials say is an
aggressive legal strategy to protect the firm's good name.
"We have an obligation to protect our trademark; otherwise we'd lose it, ''
said Monster Cable founder Noel Lee.
Critics like Victor Petrucci, founder of a small, family-owned online
clothing store called MonsterVintage,com in Camas, Wash., say Monster Cable
is going overboard.
"They strong-arm anybody who uses the word 'monster,' '' said Petrucci, who
is fighting a lawsuit that Monster Cable filed against his firm in August.
"I sell used clothing. How can I damage them at all?''
Petrucci drew public attention with a big protest sign attached to a truck
outside the main parking lot during a 49ers game shortly after Monster Cable
bought the naming rights to Candlestick Park in San Francisco.
Monster Cable legal counsel David Tognotti said it has registered more than
50 trademarks covering a wide range of products, including furniture, food
and clothing. "We've spent millions of dollars as well as countless hours
building our brand,'' he said.
Tognotti is preparing for a trial against the Discovery Channel over the
popular TV series "Monster Garage,'' which he claims uses images of
"provocative women'' and an iron cross logo that could tarnish Monster
Cable's image.
With MonsterVintage, Tognotti said he tried to stop Petrucci's use of a logo
that is very similar to Monster Cable's.
"We called them and said, 'We'd like you to stop,' '' Tognotti said. "He
continued to ignore us, so we filed a lawsuit in federal court.''
According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and court records, Monster
Cable has gone after other notable monsters:
-- Walt Disney Co., which distributed Pixar Animation Studios' hit film
"Monsters, Inc.''
-- Bally Gaming International Inc. for its Monster Slots.
-- Hansen Beverage Co. for a Monster Energy drink.
-- The Chicago Bears, whose nickname is "Monsters of the Midway.''
In most cases, Monster Cable has been able to work out a settlement or
nominal licensing agreement, Tognotti said.
For example, a deal is in the works with the owner of the Fenway Park
Monster Seats trademark that will result in some seats being made available
for charitable purposes at Monster and Fenway parks.
In 1999, Monster Cable sued the company it has been most mistaken for,
Monster,com ., the Maynard, Mass., online job-hunting site. The companies
settled in February 2000, but agreed to keep the terms confidential.
However, trademark law attorney Anthony Malutta, who once defended a client
in a case filed by Monster Cable, noted that Monster,com 's site has a link
to Monster Cable, not the other way around.
Monster Cable's policing of its trademark strengthens its legal rights and
scares off would-be monsters, said Malutta, of Townsend and Townsend and
Crew LLP of San Francisco.
However, that tactic might "hurt them if they go after everybody who uses
'monster,' like a little clothing company that really is not a source of
confusion at all,'' he said.
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
On Apr 15, 8:50 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> "They strong-arm anybody who uses the word 'monster,' '' said Petrucci, who
> is fighting a lawsuit that Monster Cable filed against his firm in August.
> "I sell used clothing. How can I damage them at all?''
> Monster Cable legal counsel David Tognotti said it has registered more than
> 50 trademarks covering a wide range of products, including furniture, food
> and clothing. "We've spent millions of dollars as well as countless hours
> building our brand,'' he said.
Well this is the clever scam, isn't it? They register 50 trademarks
with just about "monster everything they can think of" and that lets
them go after anyone who thinking that they sell clothing and not
cables can use "monster" only to find out that monster cable already
owns it! It's sort of like the grabbing all obvious internet URLs for
all the big company names and then making them pay through the nose to
have an internet address with their own name on it!
On Apr 15, 8:50 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> "They strong-arm anybody who uses the word 'monster,' '' said Petrucci, who
> is fighting a lawsuit that Monster Cable filed against his firm in August.
> "I sell used clothing. How can I damage them at all?''
> Monster Cable legal counsel David Tognotti said it has registered more than
> 50 trademarks covering a wide range of products, including furniture, food
> and clothing. "We've spent millions of dollars as well as countless hours
> building our brand,'' he said.
Well this is the clever scam, isn't it? They register 50 trademarks
with just about "monster everything they can think of" and that lets
them go after anyone who thinking that they sell clothing and not
cables can use "monster" only to find out that monster cable already
owns it! It's sort of like the grabbing all obvious internet URLs for
all the big company names and then making them pay through the nose to
have an internet address with their own name on it!
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
> Monster Cable legal counsel David Tognotti said it has registered more than
> 50 trademarks covering a wide range of products, including furniture, food
> and clothing. "We've spent millions of dollars as well as countless hours
> building our brand,'' he said.
I'm still suspicious. In order to keep a trademark, you have to use it
in actual commerce within 6 months of getting the registration. You
can't just get a trademark for the sake of tying it up, you must show it
in actual use, affixed to an actual product. I have never seen any
"Monster" furniture, food or clothing.
The idea of predatory registration of trademarks as being "building our
brand" is hilarious.
> Monster Cable legal counsel David Tognotti said it has registered more than
> 50 trademarks covering a wide range of products, including furniture, food
> and clothing. "We've spent millions of dollars as well as countless hours
> building our brand,'' he said.
I'm still suspicious. In order to keep a trademark, you have to use it
in actual commerce within 6 months of getting the registration. You
can't just get a trademark for the sake of tying it up, you must show it
in actual use, affixed to an actual product. I have never seen any
"Monster" furniture, food or clothing.
The idea of predatory registration of trademarks as being "building our
brand" is hilarious.
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > writes:
>> Monster Cable legal counsel David Tognotti said it has registered
>> more than 50 trademarks covering a wide range of products, including
>> furniture, food and clothing. "We've spent millions of dollars as
>> well as countless hours building our brand,'' he said.
>
> I'm still suspicious. In order to keep a trademark, you have to use
> it in actual commerce within 6 months of getting the registration.
> You can't just get a trademark for the sake of tying it up, you must
> show it in actual use, affixed to an actual product. I have never
> seen any "Monster" furniture, food or clothing.
>
> The idea of predatory registration of trademarks as being "building
> our brand" is hilarious.
It's perhaps possible though.
Are they involved in the Monster "energy drink" I wonder?
Clothing--I'm sure they have some logo wear at least?
Furniture... wonder if they're getting into A/V furniture? Seems like
a market they'd love as there's lots of way overpriced shit there
too.
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http :// www .toddh,net /
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ http :// www .toddh,net /netiquette/ | http :// myspace,com /bmiawmb
Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > writes:
>> Monster Cable legal counsel David Tognotti said it has registered
>> more than 50 trademarks covering a wide range of products, including
>> furniture, food and clothing. "We've spent millions of dollars as
>> well as countless hours building our brand,'' he said.
>
> I'm still suspicious. In order to keep a trademark, you have to use
> it in actual commerce within 6 months of getting the registration.
> You can't just get a trademark for the sake of tying it up, you must
> show it in actual use, affixed to an actual product. I have never
> seen any "Monster" furniture, food or clothing.
>
> The idea of predatory registration of trademarks as being "building
> our brand" is hilarious.
It's perhaps possible though.
Are they involved in the Monster "energy drink" I wonder?
Clothing--I'm sure they have some logo wear at least?
Furniture... wonder if they're getting into A/V furniture? Seems like
a market they'd love as there's lots of way overpriced shit there
too.
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http :// www .toddh,net /
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ http :// www .toddh,net /netiquette/ | http :// myspace,com /bmiawmb
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
> It's perhaps possible though.
>
> Are they involved in the Monster "energy drink" I wonder?
>
> Clothing--I'm sure they have some logo wear at least?
>
> Furniture... wonder if they're getting into A/V furniture? Seems like
> a market they'd love as there's lots of way overpriced shit there
> too.
Yeah, I suppose that's all possible. Which, if true, reinforces my
belief that they are not a technology company at all, but just a
hype/marketing company. They are not really interested in making
quality products, just profit.
> It's perhaps possible though.
>
> Are they involved in the Monster "energy drink" I wonder?
>
> Clothing--I'm sure they have some logo wear at least?
>
> Furniture... wonder if they're getting into A/V furniture? Seems like
> a market they'd love as there's lots of way overpriced shit there
> too.
Yeah, I suppose that's all possible. Which, if true, reinforces my
belief that they are not a technology company at all, but just a
hype/marketing company. They are not really interested in making
quality products, just profit.
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > wrote in
news:%poNj.1794$pS4.468@newssvr13.news.prodigy,net :
>> Monster Cable legal counsel David Tognotti said it has registered
>> more than 50 trademarks covering a wide range of products, including
>> furniture, food and clothing. "We've spent millions of dollars as
>> well as countless hours building our brand,'' he said.
>
> I'm still suspicious. In order to keep a trademark, you have to use
> it in actual commerce within 6 months of getting the registration.
> You can't just get a trademark for the sake of tying it up, you must
> show it in actual use, affixed to an actual product. I have never
> seen any "Monster" furniture, food or clothing.
>
> The idea of predatory registration of trademarks as being "building
> our brand" is hilarious.
Yet you'd be amazed at how companies do it. Just take a look at what
Intel (my former evil overlord) has trademarked.
--
Aaron
Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > wrote in
news:%poNj.1794$pS4.468@newssvr13.news.prodigy,net :
>> Monster Cable legal counsel David Tognotti said it has registered
>> more than 50 trademarks covering a wide range of products, including
>> furniture, food and clothing. "We've spent millions of dollars as
>> well as countless hours building our brand,'' he said.
>
> I'm still suspicious. In order to keep a trademark, you have to use
> it in actual commerce within 6 months of getting the registration.
> You can't just get a trademark for the sake of tying it up, you must
> show it in actual use, affixed to an actual product. I have never
> seen any "Monster" furniture, food or clothing.
>
> The idea of predatory registration of trademarks as being "building
> our brand" is hilarious.
Yet you'd be amazed at how companies do it. Just take a look at what
Intel (my former evil overlord) has trademarked.
--
Aaron
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
Apparently you weren't here when the asshole CEO was PERSONALLY Shouting
down people who dared disparage his product in several Usenet groups,
including this one. IIRC, the genesis of that tirade was that someone posted
info on a Monster infringement suit...that allegedly didn't happen...
I've still got my personal reply saved somewhere, I think.
Oh, and he needs to drop that "Monster Wrongfully Accused" bullshit. If you
are "wrongfully accused" so often that you need to put it in your
letterhead, maybe it's not so wrongful...
"Nil" <rednoise+news@REMOVETHIScomcast,net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A81C06988C99nilch1@216.196.97.136...
> On 15 Apr 2008, BW <barrybassist@yahoo,com > wrote in
> alt.guitar.bass:
>
> > This letter from the asshole CEO of Monster throws out a lot of
> > statements that he's not suing anyone, doesn't plan to sue anyone,
> > blah, blah, blah, but that's not the issue or the claim. The issue
> > is that he bullies and intimidates small companies into either
> > giving him a chunk of their profits, buying in to the name, or
> > forcing them to change their identities.
>
> Can you cite an example? The matter that prompted this letter seems to
> have been resolved amicably, if the letter from Snowmonsters is to be
> taken at face value. I can post that letter here, too, if anyone's
> interested.
>
> There's a lot of smoke about this reputation, so I would expect to see
> actual fire. Where is it?
>
> > I haven't bought a Monster product in years, nor will I.
>
> I've never bought any.
Apparently you weren't here when the asshole CEO was PERSONALLY Shouting
down people who dared disparage his product in several Usenet groups,
including this one. IIRC, the genesis of that tirade was that someone posted
info on a Monster infringement suit...that allegedly didn't happen...
I've still got my personal reply saved somewhere, I think.
Oh, and he needs to drop that "Monster Wrongfully Accused" bullshit. If you
are "wrongfully accused" so often that you need to put it in your
letterhead, maybe it's not so wrongful...
"Nil" <rednoise+news@REMOVETHIScomcast,net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A81C06988C99nilch1@216.196.97.136...
> On 15 Apr 2008, BW <barrybassist@yahoo,com > wrote in
> alt.guitar.bass:
>
> > This letter from the asshole CEO of Monster throws out a lot of
> > statements that he's not suing anyone, doesn't plan to sue anyone,
> > blah, blah, blah, but that's not the issue or the claim. The issue
> > is that he bullies and intimidates small companies into either
> > giving him a chunk of their profits, buying in to the name, or
> > forcing them to change their identities.
>
> Can you cite an example? The matter that prompted this letter seems to
> have been resolved amicably, if the letter from Snowmonsters is to be
> taken at face value. I can post that letter here, too, if anyone's
> interested.
>
> There's a lot of smoke about this reputation, so I would expect to see
> actual fire. Where is it?
>
> > I haven't bought a Monster product in years, nor will I.
>
> I've never bought any.
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
> Apparently you weren't here when the asshole CEO was PERSONALLY Shouting
> down people who dared disparage his product in several Usenet groups,
> including this one. IIRC, the genesis of that tirade was that someone posted
> info on a Monster infringement suit...that allegedly didn't happen...
>
> I've still got my personal reply saved somewhere, I think.
http :// tinyurl,com /5qdq6k
> Apparently you weren't here when the asshole CEO was PERSONALLY Shouting
> down people who dared disparage his product in several Usenet groups,
> including this one. IIRC, the genesis of that tirade was that someone posted
> info on a Monster infringement suit...that allegedly didn't happen...
>
> I've still got my personal reply saved somewhere, I think.
http :// tinyurl,com /5qdq6k
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > wrote in message
news:avoNj.1795$pS4.475@newssvr13.news.prodigy,net ...
>> Apparently you weren't here when the asshole CEO was PERSONALLY Shouting
>> down people who dared disparage his product in several Usenet groups,
>> including this one. IIRC, the genesis of that tirade was that someone
>> posted
>> info on a Monster infringement suit...that allegedly didn't happen...
>>
>> I've still got my personal reply saved somewhere, I think.
>
> http :// tinyurl,com /5qdq6k
>
I find it funny that one of their registered trademarks is "Monster Bucks"
Maybe the other company that's quick to send out cease and desist threats
should do battle.
Starbucks vs Monsterbucks
Jay S
"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > wrote in message
news:avoNj.1795$pS4.475@newssvr13.news.prodigy,net ...
>> Apparently you weren't here when the asshole CEO was PERSONALLY Shouting
>> down people who dared disparage his product in several Usenet groups,
>> including this one. IIRC, the genesis of that tirade was that someone
>> posted
>> info on a Monster infringement suit...that allegedly didn't happen...
>>
>> I've still got my personal reply saved somewhere, I think.
>
> http :// tinyurl,com /5qdq6k
>
I find it funny that one of their registered trademarks is "Monster Bucks"
Maybe the other company that's quick to send out cease and desist threats
should do battle.
Starbucks vs Monsterbucks
Jay S
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
Brian Running wrote:
>> I've still got my personal reply saved somewhere, I think.
>
> http :// tinyurl,com /5qdq6k
Huh, haven't seen that before, my firewall just warned me that tinyurl is a
site known to distribute spyware. I'd heard rumblings about that in the
past, but this is the first time I've had a warning about it from security
software.
Brian Running wrote:
>> I've still got my personal reply saved somewhere, I think.
>
> http :// tinyurl,com /5qdq6k
Huh, haven't seen that before, my firewall just warned me that tinyurl is a
site known to distribute spyware. I'd heard rumblings about that in the
past, but this is the first time I've had a warning about it from security
software.
Re: Monster cable aholes at it again
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g5udnbqON6j1oJvVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@earthlink,com ...
> Brian Running wrote:
>
>>> I've still got my personal reply saved somewhere, I think.
>>
>> http :// tinyurl,com /5qdq6k
>
> Huh, haven't seen that before, my firewall just warned me that tinyurl is
> a site known to distribute spyware. I'd heard rumblings about that in the
> past, but this is the first time I've had a warning about it from security
> software.
>
tinyurl isn't a problem, unless the person who gives you the link is using
it to send you to a site that DOES distribute spyware. Brian's link leads to
an archived discussion in google groups. Go for it.
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g5udnbqON6j1oJvVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@earthlink,com ...
> Brian Running wrote:
>
>>> I've still got my personal reply saved somewhere, I think.
>>
>> http :// tinyurl,com /5qdq6k
>
> Huh, haven't seen that before, my firewall just warned me that tinyurl is
> a site known to distribute spyware. I'd heard rumblings about that in the
> past, but this is the first time I've had a warning about it from security
> software.
>
tinyurl isn't a problem, unless the person who gives you the link is using
it to send you to a site that DOES distribute spyware. Brian's link leads to
an archived discussion in google groups. Go for it.
