• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Monster Cable business practices...

There's all this talk about how Behringer is the devil because they have nasty business ethics. Long threads devoted to it, right? What about Monster Cable? I think it's easier to talk down on Behringer, because their products aren't terribly fantastic anyway. How about this though?
:eyebrow:

Invalid Link Removed

Rogue of the Week:

MonsterVintage.com occupies two floors in one of the Pearl District's last unpolished industrial warehouses, where the 3-year-old company sifts through massive crates of used clothes in search of gems. Much as the Rogue Desk thinks it insane to pay $250 for a '70s rock T-shirt, the business Victor Petrucci and Cathy West named after their cat in 2001 is a relatively modest concern. The couple has two part-time employees; the biz grosses about $200,000 a year.

MonsterVintage's humble scale only makes its treatment at the hands of Goliath rogue Monster Cable all the more despicable. The San Francisco electronic-components company--which deals in coaxial cables, car audio gear, cell-phone handsets and the like, raking in $300 million annually--is suing MonsterVintage for trademark violation.

Monster Cable makes a hobby of such suits. It's gone after the Discovery Channel for its show Monster Garage, Bally Gaming's Monster slot machine and a novelty shop with the web domain name monster.biz. (So far, they haven't sued Monster.com, the jobs site.)

"They're just into strong-arm tactics," says Petrucci. "They just try to instill fear in people, and people just give up their business names."

Petrucci says that before suing, Monster Cable tried to get him to pay $1,000 and 1 percent of MonsterVintage's business to keep using the name. The MV owners plan to represent themselves, and they hope for a jury trial. They may get some free legal help from law students volunteering for the nonprofit Electronic Freedom Foundation. Monster Cable's spokesman declined to comment.

Petrucci spent a week in early October driving around San Francisco in a Ryder truck mounted with giant signs publicizing the case. In a city where Monster Cable just controversially paid $6 million for naming rights to Candlestick Park, Petrucci says he received many a thumbs-up. It's a comfort, he says, if a small one.

"I haven't been able to eat or sleep because of this," he says. "We'd like to hire more people and expand our business, but we can't because of this delusion of theirs."
 
I really don't understand it in the least bit. Based on my understanding of trademark law, they don't have a leg to stand on. You can't take a common word like "monster" and say that you have sole rights to its use. In fact, I thought that is why we are seeing all of these companies popping up with weird names.
 
embellisher said:
Whether you like their business practices or not, if Monster has been using the name longer, they have the right to do whatever it takes to protect the brand.

I am pretty sure if I opened a business called Coke Vintage whatever, that Coca Cola would take legal action against me.
not the same IMO. It would be more like:

Donkey cable vs. Donkey Clothing than you using Coke as anything.
 
Even if your case would likely be thrown out of court, you can always scare away competition with the threat of sueing (even though its ethically questionable if the case has no basis). For example, if I have a lot of money (which I dont :( ) and run Mark's SMASH repairs, I could threaten SMASH's Pollitical Pamphlet Printers with a trademark violation suit. Assuming that SMASH has no money to waste on lawyers and legal advice and possibly going to court, he may just fold and change his name.
 
Mark Latimour said:
Even if your case would likely be thrown out of court, you can always scare away competition with the threat of sueing (even though its ethically questionable if the case has no basis). For example, if I have a lot of money (which I dont :( ) and run Mark's SMASH repairs, I could threaten SMASH's Pollitical Pamphlet Printers with a trademark violation suit. Assuming that SMASH has no money to waste on lawyers and legal advice and possibly going to court, he may just fold and change his name.
"Petrucci says that before suing, Monster Cable tried to get him to pay $1,000 and 1 percent of MonsterVintage's business to keep using the name."

This is the nastiest part, to me. Like Monster cable wants to be a pimp. That's some ballsy intimidation.
 
embellisher said:
Whether you like their business practices or not, if Monster has been using the name longer, they have the right to do whatever it takes to protect the brand.

I am pretty sure if I opened a business called Coke Vintage whatever, that Coca Cola would take legal action against me.
Although I agree to a point, using a common reference like "Monster" creates a problem.

But I did here that Coke is thinking about going after some Columbian Drug Lords though.;) :D

For what it's worth: I thought Monster.Com (the job site) was the one who had the deal with Candlestick Park, as I'm sure most of America does as only Musician's, Audiophiles, and people getting sued know who/what Monster Cable is (No..it's not the new 24 hour Monstermovie channel :p ).