Jim Alfredson Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...L&type=business Lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Wham-O needs to tell them boys to back the hell off... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Lightning Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I dare you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vibes Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 (edited) Monster is a very interesting company. As a part of my job, I've dealt with them quite a bit over the last 18 months. I've been to their headquarters, walked through their factory, even met Noel Lee. Regardless of how one might feel about their products, their employees are pretty impressive, in terms of how much they know about Monster products, their capabilities, and what Monster products work well with other products. What's amazing is that it's not just their salespeople that have this knowledge - everyone I've dealt with there, from logistics managers to bean counters, has this knowledge. That's where I find them most impressive - they're a big marketing machine. These lawsuits are extremely unfortunate, IMO. Edited December 9, 2004 by vibes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Monster is a very interesting company. As a part of my job, I've dealt with them quite a bit over the last 18 months. I've been to their headquarters, walked through their factory, even met Noel Lee. Regardless of how one might feel about their products, their employees are pretty impressive, in terms of how much they know about Monster products, their capabilities, and what Monster products work well with other products. What's amazing is that it's not just their salespeople that have this knowledge - everyone I've dealt with there, from logistics managers to bean counters, has this knowledge. That's where I find them most impressive - they're a big marketing machine. These lawsuits are extremely unfortunate, IMO. I guess they hid their arrogance well. The word 'Monster'? Give me a break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 (edited) In the Hifi scene here in Europe, Monster cables are not highly regarded, because they are more about marketing than about innovation or quality. Monster Cables was still selling those impressive mega-thick speaker cables when it was clear to everybody that for the sound quaity the dimension of the cables is irrelevant compared to their construction concept. Monster Cables has always been the hifi cable brand that has been the most heavily promoted. Even Walmart-like stores sold them. That's why "monster cable" developped into a generic designation of expensive hifi cables, and maybe the reason why they are now defending their trademark so aggressively. A trademark owner has the obligation to stop his trademark from becoming a generic term. Sony had to do this with "Walkman", requesting newspapers not to use this word for non-Sony portable players. There is a similar case with the chocolate producer Ferrero and it's "Kinder" (the german word for children) trademark. They registered "Kinder" for chocolate a long time ago, and then recently tried to sue companies in different sectors who used the word "Kinder" in a trademark or domain name. Fortunately they were not successful at that. An austrian website about children used the domain www.kinder.at (like "www.children.com") and got sued by Ferrero who claimed the name was an infringement of their chocolate brand Edited December 9, 2004 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vibes Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Monster is a very interesting company. As a part of my job, I've dealt with them quite a bit over the last 18 months. I've been to their headquarters, walked through their factory, even met Noel Lee. Regardless of how one might feel about their products, their employees are pretty impressive, in terms of how much they know about Monster products, their capabilities, and what Monster products work well with other products. What's amazing is that it's not just their salespeople that have this knowledge - everyone I've dealt with there, from logistics managers to bean counters, has this knowledge. That's where I find them most impressive - they're a big marketing machine. These lawsuits are extremely unfortunate, IMO. I guess they hid their arrogance well. The word 'Monster'? Give me a break. No, I said nothing about hiding arrogance. But, since I am Monster's biggest customer, I probably shouldn't say more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Fitzgerald Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 The city of Monster, Holland is next on the list. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Walkman, kleenix and formica were all trademarked names that I believe have become "public domain" by court rulings. I cannot imagine monster will be treated any differently. They've just got to come up against someone using "monster" who has the $$ to oppose them in court. Later, Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 -- 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.'' Any one of those looks like a strong enough opponent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 http://monstersushi.com/ These folks had to change their name from Godzilla Sushi because of a law suit. Next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 (edited) Walkman, kleenix and formica were all trademarked names that I believe have become "public domain" by court rulings Those names are still trademarked here in Europe. In order to become generic and be part of the public domain, a trademark must appear to have been abandonned by the holder, i.e. he is not promoting and defending it anymore. Sony had to take action to avoid "Walkman" becoming generic, and they were successful at that. With Monster Cable, it's a different problem. They claim that their trademark "Monster" is famous (like Porsche, Cartier, or Coca Cola) and therefore it can be enforced against uses in other sectors as well. This is kind of megalomaniac to think that every consumer who sees the word Monster thinks about audio cables. Edited December 9, 2004 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzhound Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 their cables stink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I've been generally happy with the instrument cables, but then I haven't really shopped around lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 -- 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.'' Any one of those looks like a strong enough opponent. It depends on the class of goods in which they're registered. You can have many people use the same name but if they register in a different class of goods, there's no infringement and hence no possible chance of confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 If this goes to court they will have to prove "confusion". A jumper cable company would be in trouble but a yogurt stand would be ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man with the Golden Arm Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 If US trademark law is similar to the european law, there are two ways for Monster to be successful, and both are rather unlikely to come true: - if the trademark "Monster" is recognized as being wellknown (unlikely!), they can use it against use of the word "Monster" for all sorts of products and services, because wellknown trademark have a right to a wider protection, even if they are not registered. The reason for this is that famous trademarks are frequently misused. There is no need to prove confusion in this case. - if Monster Cable registered their trademark for all types of products and services (not difficult to do), they can enforce it against all uses, UNLESS the defendant proves that Monster is not really using the trademark for the type of product the defendant is using it for. A trademark registration can be canceled if the mark is not used for a period of 5 years, to prevent companies to register trademarks without actually using them. So if Monster Cable sues a clothing producer for using the Monster word, with their trademark registration that includes clothing, it would also have to prove herself that is it using their Monster trademark for clothing, otherwise clothing will have to be taken from the trademark registration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeway Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 They should put more money into research & development than litigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ubu Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Never heard of Monster Cables before reading these threads... so "famous", what b-s! And about the "Kinder" thing: isn't it ridiculous that everyday words like "children" can be copyrighted and protected? I mean, why don't they start suing everyone who actually dares to breed their own "Kinder"? That would sure help selling a lot of Kinder chocolate to the frustrated grown ups who are not allowed to, well, you know what... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 I had accidentally started another thread on this topic but after doing a bit more research into this, specifically by looking at some of the lawsuits on file at the the US Patent and Trademark Office, I've decided to boycott their stuff. The thing that bugs me is that just before this came out, I had wired an entire home theater system for my in-laws with Monster Cable stuff. Splitters, interconnects, speaker wire... the whole thing. They appeared to be the "best" at BestBuy so I went with it. No more. If these guys want to sue the Chicago Bears for calling themselves "The Monsters of the Midway", or the Red Sox for calling the left field wall "The Green Monster" then I want nothing to do with their stuff. Go ahead, Monster Cable, sue Sesame Street for calling one of the characters "the Cookie Monster". Keep suing away. If enough people like me get sick of it, you'll be begging for the business. Later, Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 (edited) Kevin, the vast majority of these are not lawsuits and not even administrative proceedings (opposition)against other trademarks, but only requests for extension of the opposition period, that Monster Cable made to be able to study the other trademarks. If you click on the details, you will see "Current Status: A request for an extension of time to file an opposition has been filed at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.", and in the USPTO letter "The request to extend time to oppose is granted until xx/xx/2004 on behalf of potential opposer Monster Cable Products, Inc.". Whether this procedure is also used as a sort of warning I cannot say. The only thing that's strange is that Monster made so many of those requests, many more than any other big company I have checked. I have only found a few cases that said "Current Status: An opposition is now pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board." One case was "Current Status: Abandoned after an inter partes decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board." I haven't seen one opposition that Monster Cable won. But anyway it seems that the dominant strategy of Monster Cable is not to start official proceedings (which they would probably lose) but to menace small companies who don't have the means to study the legal situation, by sending them letters requesting to take a trademark licence from monster Cable or abandon the use of "Monster". This is also discussed here: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthre...24&page=2&pp=20 Edited January 18, 2005 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted January 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Guess my Herman Munster joke didn't sit well with the bosses? --- Now playing: Jani Christou - Symphony No. 1 (Part II) This is a different thread, my friend. Your joke is in the other one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.