• 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 free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Monster cable filing multiple lawsuits...

#61
Ok, it is a good read. As some other posts below the previous link mentioned, is this person really who they claim to be? Keep reading that thread.

If you look at all the trademarks they have set up, some are a bit rediculous. Some of them almost seem like domain squatting.

Class 18: Leather Bags and Apparel
Monster Design

Class 25: Clothing and Apparel

In Class 25, we have the following registered trademarks, some which date back over 15 years:

I Am A Monster
Monster
Monster Attitude
Monster Design
Monster Sport

Class 35: Advertising and Marketing Services
eMonster
iMonster
Monster Bucks
Monsterbook
Monsterguide

Class 36: Financial Services
Monstermoney

Class 41: Entertainment, Educational and Training Services
Monster Music
Monster Style

Class 42: Research and Development Services
Monster Music
Monsterlinks
Click to expand...

Leather bags, apparel, and financial services?! I didn't get any investment advice when I bought my cable.

As far as them not suing other companies, was the original article I posted a lie? I shall invstigate.....
 
#62
Jason Carota said:
Ok, it is a good read. But if you look at all the trademarks they have set up, some are a bit rediculous. Some of them almost seem like domain squatting.



Leather bags, apparel, and financial services?! I didn't get any investment advice when I bought my cable.

As far as them not suing other companies, was the original article I posted a lie? I shall invstigate.....
Click to expand...
Im sure if you do a search on any large corporation with a popular brand name they will hold all kinds of trademarks which they dont currently use. Its just prudent business practice to ensure that someone else can't dillute your own brand.

I guess if you look long and hard enough, you will find a "monster" under your bed. Excuse the pun ;)
 
#63
Jason Carota said:
Ok, it is a good read. But if you look at all the trademarks they have set up, some are a bit rediculous. Some of them almost seem like domain squatting.
Click to expand...

Well that would be a completely separate issue and it seems like kind of a lame attempt to find something else wrong.

brad cook
 
#64
To be perfectly honest I guess a part of me kind of wanted it to be true since I don't care at all for the marketing aspect and hype about Monster cables.

For the record though, Latimour, if this had been true I think it would be a completely different thing than those moviemakers completely ripping off that lady's idea.

brad cook
 
#65
DigMe said:
Well that would be a completely separate issue and it seems like kind of a lame attempt to find something else wrong.

brad cook
Click to expand...

Not something else, it ties in with the whole corporate bullying issue.


Also, on a separate note, is that person in the thread really who they say they are? (Hence the edit in my previous post.)
 
#66
DigMe said:
For the record though, Latimour, if this had been true I think it would be a completely different thing than those moviemakers completely ripping off that lady's idea.
Click to expand...

Ultimately they both come back to an entity using the intellectual property of another entity for its own gain without the permission of the owner of the IP.
 
#67
From the clothing store supposedly that is not being sued, according to the Monster founder:

http://www.monstervintage.com/#monstercable

Two years of threatening letters demanding Monstervintage.com to conform has been nothing less than harassment and intimidation intended to limit the rights and liberties to further the growth of Monstervintage.com. Now Monster Cable has filed a 5 Counts Federal Lawsuit for diluting the word MONSTER (1) Trademark Infringement (2)Federl Unfair Competition (3) Contributory Trademark Infringement (4) Dilution of Famous Mark (5) State Unfair Competition & Dilution in attempt to take over the Monstervintage.com. Domain Name Read More Below.
Click to expand...
 
#68
Jason Carota said:
Not something else, it ties in with the whole corporate bullying issue.


Also, on a separate note, is that person in the thread really who they say they are? (Hence the edit in my previous post.)
Click to expand...

It sounds like a well constructed defense against the current news... It "sounds" likely to be legit...
 
#69
More evidence:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&qs=monster cable products&page=1

Is that person really who they say they are?

If these cases are real, then isn't the following a lie:

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.
Click to expand...
 
#70
Mark Latimour said:
Ultimately they both come back to an entity using the intellectual property of another entity for its own gain without the permission of the owner of the IP.
Click to expand...

No, if monstervintage has nothing to do with Monster, their name wasn't inspired by monster and they don't use any monster logos or anything other than the common word "monster" then they aren't doing anything wrong. Whereas in the other case the Wachowski brothers and the Terminator person deliberately stole storylines and ideas for their movies. Maybe we disagree but to me that's different.

brad cook
 
#72
DigMe said:
No, if monstervintage has nothing to do with Monster, their name wasn't inspired by monster and they don't use any monster logos or anything other than the common word "monster" then they aren't doing anything wrong. Whereas in the other case the Wachowski brothers and the Terminator person deliberately stole storylines and ideas for their movies. Maybe we disagree but to me that's different.
Click to expand...

Well of course its different if you assume the first party is innocent and the second party isnt! ;)

I was assuming they were both in breach of the respective IP (copyright for the story and trademark for the monster name).
 
#73
Jason Carota said:
On a side note, I hope some of my replies don't seem like I am attacking anyone. Cases like this just get on my nerves.
Click to expand...
See the thing is, the statement from MonsterVintage is likely to be just as biased as the statement from Monster Products Inc. So if you put your faith in either one "too much", you are likely to come off a little red faced. OTOH the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the two stories presented to you.

BTW how many news stories are you aware of that run the "hey lets celebrate, the big corporation is giving it to the little guy" story? Chances are none - it doesnt sell papers - which is why those stories are always framed to make it look like the "little guy" is in the right, even if thats not true either!

:)
 
#74
Mark Latimour said:
BTW how many news stories are you aware of that run the "hey lets celebrate, the big corporation is giving it to the little guy" story? Chances are none - it doesnt sell papers - which is why those stories are always framed to make it look like the "little guy" is in the right, even if thats not true either!

:)
Click to expand...

Sadly those fat dolts won against McDonald's.
 
#75
Mark Latimour said:
See the thing is, the statement from MonsterVintage is likely to be just as biased as the statement from Monster Products Inc. So if you put your faith in either one "too much", you are likely to come off a little red faced. OTOH the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the two stories presented to you.BTW how many news stories are you aware of that run the "hey lets celebrate, the big corporation is giving it to the little guy" story? Chances are none - it doesnt sell papers - which is why those stories are always framed to make it look like the "little guy" is in the right, even if thats not true either!

:)
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. With stories like this, I do tend to favor the "little guy." :) I still feel that Monster is going a bit too far, especially when you take in to consideration all the companies listed on the USPO site.
 
#78
Noel Lee claims trademarks back to 1978.

Bob Chandler made the first MONSTER TRUCK in 1976.

Do a quick poll among people to find out which is a more recognizable term; monster cable, or monster truck. Gee, I hope Noel doesn't try to go after Bob.

If Noel continues to press the issue, a court may just throw out his trademarks, because he very probably shoulda never gotten them in the first place. Monster is simply not a unique word, and was already in use in the common lexicon (again, as I said; as a means to describe something massive, audacious, or extreme) long before he "adopted" it as a brand.

If he's pressuring ANYONE, he's bordering on abusing the copyright, IMHO. I understand IP...believe me, I do...but this one's dicey.
 
#79
Mark Latimour said:
Any prudent business would examine all possible business' that could be infringing on their trademark and determine whether it is necessary to enforce a trademark against them.

Your own text clearly indicates that Monster must have deemed it not necessary to enforce because the NFL's use of the term doesnt infringe against their trademark.
Click to expand...


I didn't think it would infringe, but was really stunned to hear that they thought about a law suit against the Chicago Bears.
I'd like to know why they didn't pursue. Could they had realized the NFL could bankrupt them in the process of a long litigation, Did they find no grounds? I'd really lilke to find that out.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back