• 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 Cables = Corporate Bully

H

hey

Jul 8, 2006
598
3
Wisconsin
#1
As an eBay Associate, TalkBass may earn a commission from qualifying purchases.
#2
When danish hitpop group Aqua, was earning millions on "Barbie Girl", Mattel, who own the TM "Barbie" for their well known doll went on a crusade all over the planet to protect it.

A friend of mine at the time, was webmaster for a local band called "Lesbian Barbies", got a letter from a local law firm that represented Mattel, "shut down your website or we take you to court" ..

There's no end to the stupidities when it comes to these kind of things.

D.Don
 
#4
D.Don said:
When danish hitpop group Aqua, was earning millions on "Barbie Girl", Mattel, who own the TM "Barbie" for their well known doll went on a crusade all over the planet to protect it.

A friend of mine at the time, was webmaster for a local band called "Lesbian Barbies", got a letter from a local law firm that represented Mattel, "shut down your website or we take you to court" ..

There's no end to the stupidities when it comes to these kind of things.

D.Don
Click to expand...

I would take down my website and send a letter. "you're a ******bag."
 
#9
I don't support this kind of behavior from corporations, but I understand why it's necessary. Trademark laws are such that if you don't defend your trademark, you can lose it. So, even if the corporation doesn't really mind their trademark being used by group A, it is necessary to go after that group because when group B does something bad with their trademark, they can't make a good case against group B unless they go after group A.
 
#10
john turner said:
metallica made themselves the biggest band in the world. i'm far from a metallica bobblehead, but to think that it's bad that metallica should protect their name from being used to sell -lipstick- if silly.
Click to expand...

yeah, but sometimes you just have to sit back and look at what you're doing to make sure it isnt stupid. First off, you shouldnt be into music for just money. Secondly, thats not like it was their only lawsuit. I think they can live with the millions they have and let this lipstick be a drop in the bucket so to speak. It would never hurt them in any way, ya know? its just like, treat others the way yo want to be treated.
 
#11
santucci218 said:
ive seen worse.

Slipknot sued Burger King for this commercial..

Note- I can not find the video of the commercial, i guess they pulled it off everywhere!

goggle these key words to read about it...
"Burger King chicken fries concert"]

if anyone finds the vid, post it.
Click to expand...

Couldn't find the video, but there's a picture of the mask slipknot sued over here

my two favorites are still Fantasy Records suing John Fogerty for sounding like himself & Geffen suing Neil Young for not sounding like himself
 
#12
santucci218 said:
yeah, but sometimes you just have to sit back and look at what you're doing to make sure it isnt stupid. First off, you shouldnt be into music for just money. Secondly, thats not like it was their only lawsuit. I think they can live with the millions they have and let this lipstick be a drop in the bucket so to speak. It would never hurt them in any way, ya know? its just like, treat others the way yo want to be treated.
Click to expand...

exactly. It's not like Metallica was going to lose money to a damn makeup company. so what's the point? did they think people would actually believe it was a Metallica endorsed lipstick shade? I doubt it.
 
#14
santucci218 said:
yeah, but sometimes you just have to sit back and look at what you're doing to make sure it isnt stupid. First off, you shouldnt be into music for just money. Secondly, thats not like it was their only lawsuit. I think they can live with the millions they have and let this lipstick be a drop in the bucket so to speak. It would never hurt them in any way, ya know? its just like, treat others the way yo want to be treated.
Click to expand...

Fli said:
exactly. It's not like Metallica was going to lose money to a damn makeup company. so what's the point? did they think people would actually believe it was a Metallica endorsed lipstick shade? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
You guys are not getting how trademark laws work. If they don't go after them then another company can make a case that they can use the name.
 
#16
++++++ hahahaha


this is part of the response from the owner of Blue Jean Cable


+++++++






If my analysis shows that there is any reasonable likelihood that we have infringed in any way any of Monster Cable's intellectual property rights, we will of course take any and all action necessary to resolve the situation. If I do not hear from you within the next fourteen days, or if I do hear from you but do not receive all of the information requested above, I will assume that you have abandoned these claims and closed your file.

As for your requests for information, or for action, directed to me: I would remind you that it is you, not I, who are making claims; and it is you, not I, who must substantiate those claims. You have not done so.




++++++

that is classic, yeah monstah! go smoke on that!

:D
 
#17
Hi.

This is news to me.

I guess that in a country where a client can sue a company for coffee being hot (and win), and the next one sues over two cups being hot (that sucker lost IIRC) anything's possible.

What about Monster family ? Monsters Inc.? Monster trucks? Monster Jam? Are they being sued too?

I have a finnish tube head from the 70's called Monster. The company is BTW alive and kicking again.

Invalid Link Removed

Great boutique amps.

Regards
Sam
 
#18
rokkitt said:
++++++ hahahaha


this is part of the response from the owner of Blue Jean Cable


+++++++






If my analysis shows that there is any reasonable likelihood that we have infringed in any way any of Monster Cable's intellectual property rights, we will of course take any and all action necessary to resolve the situation. If I do not hear from you within the next fourteen days, or if I do hear from you but do not receive all of the information requested above, I will assume that you have abandoned these claims and closed your file.

As for your requests for information, or for action, directed to me: I would remind you that it is you, not I, who are making claims; and it is you, not I, who must substantiate those claims. You have not done so.




++++++

that is classic, yeah monstah! go smoke on that!

:D
Click to expand...

:D LOL
 
#19
first of all, let me say that i am in no way endorsing how monster cable conducts themselves.

but comparing metallica's legitimate IP infringement issues to monster cable's fishing expeditions deserves being addressed.

santucci218 said:
yeah, but sometimes you just have to sit back and look at what you're doing to make sure it isnt stupid.
Click to expand...

protecting one's own property is -never- stupid.

First off, you shouldnt be into music for just money.
Click to expand...

if they were only in it for the money, they wouldn't have invented their own sound when they started. i was around then, i head them when they were new. there was -nothing- that sounded like them. even before master of puppets was released, guitar mags were calling them the next zeppelin.

furthermore, how can i put this gently? making music is just like anything else you do once you're on your own. it's called working for a living - it's what grownups have to do when they want to eat.

Secondly, thats not like it was their only lawsuit. I think they can live with the millions they have and let this lipstick be a drop in the bucket so to speak.
Click to expand...

they are -entitled- to protect their name, likeness and everything else they've worked to establish from the endless horde of remorahs attempting to steal it from them to make a buck off their work.

they'd be fools not to.

again, when it's your property that you worked very hard for and even lost a friend establishing that's being absconded, come back to me and tell me how generously it should be distributed among those corporate pigstuckers who otherwise would never contribute anything redeeming or worthy of note or rememberance to the world.

It would never hurt them in any way, ya know? its just like, treat others the way yo want to be treated.
Click to expand...

it would most definitely hurt them - folks -pay- to use other people's intellectual property. they weren't getting paid. just because they have in the past earned a large sum of money with their intellectual property doesn't somehow put it up for grabs.

and examine the people you are defending - they are =marketing= people that decided to rip them off to sell lipstick :rolleyes: . ever listen to bill hicks? :eyebrow:
 
#20
This is old news.

However, I stand by thinking it is way over the top thinking you can somehow trademark a very common word!


. . . But you can't use A, C# or F, those are trademarked by Walt Disney :smug:


Also, the Slipknot one is pretty funny for two reasons:

A) They are in no way the first metal band to use masks (GWAR FTW)

B) I remember when they came out, they said the masks weren't a gimmik :rolleyes:

The Metallica one, I can kind of understand, it isnt like it's exactly a "standard" word or anything. Though granted I'm sure it wouldn't hurt thier share in the lipstick market. I still hate them tho

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuR5TNyL8Y


(I wonder if that's on Major Metal's account, or is there some wierd relation between Condoleezza Rice and Metallica?)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back