This is a post from another forum about how Monster Cable is strong-arming many companies. This is old news but I though people here might find this interesting. I have not seen anything about it on this site sorry if it has been posted before.


"FYI, here is what I was posting on some other forums (motorcycle forums) for those that may not know about this yet:

So, I was over at www.avsforum.com when I found out that Monster Cable has been doing some major strong-arm tactics on large and small companies that have used the word Monster in their name, product name or anything like it.

Some of the things they are sueing about:
Monster Garage
Monster House
Monster Energy Drink
Snow Monsters (a kids skiing group)
MonsterVintage (small used clothing store)
Monsters Inc.
Monster's of the Midway (Chicago Bears)
Fenway Park's Monster seats
Monster Job site

The list goes on. If you want to see a list of who they are sueing, click here

Here is a link to a news article on it in the SF Gate.

So, they are going after small and large alike. If you can't afford to fight it, they will take as little as $1000 up front and only 1% of your gross yearly business income.

I personally don't want to support a company that has business tactics like that. Trying to take away names of things that have nothing to do with their business. Please don't support them and purchase their very overpriced products.

In case anyone wants to write a little letter:
Noel Lee, President
NLee@monstercable.com
Monster Cable
455 Valley Drive
Brisbane, CA 94005
Phone: 415 840-2000
Fax: 415 468-0310

David Tognotti, General Counsel
dtognotti@monstercable.com
Phone: 415 716-0303

Irene Baran, Chief Operating Officer
iebaran@monstercable.com

Daniel Graham, Editorial and Press Contact
dgraham@monstercable.com

Press Contact:
Charles Leib, PR Monster
cleib@monstercable.com
Phone: (602) 300-0900 "

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0&page=1&pp=30

Yup, long thread here

To play devil's advocate for a minute... Monster Cable is required by US trademark laws to actively protect the 'Monster' trademark or suffer losing it to someone who will. That's not Monster Cable's fault, its the law. Every trademark, in every industry is just as actively protected so to single out Monster is a little naive.

Yup, Solude is right.

Plus, the information in the original post is no longer valid. A lot of it was wrong to begin with. For instance, the Snow Monsters thing has been resolved for more than a year with no litigation. See here:
http://www.snowmonsters.com/MonsterCable/index.html

Quote:




Yea I know the post was very old but it was new to me. I thought it might be new to other people too.

Quote:



They aren't required by law to do anything of the sort. They have the discretion and sovereignty to do it, and it is their responsiblity to discern what should be protected and subsequently take actions they deem necessary. That's it. It neither means Monster is in the right or can win all their suits. Monster sues and settles out of court in most cases mainly because they are keenly aware defendants do not have the resources for drawn-out litigation. Ever since Monster started staffing lawyers on their payroll, it looks like they have had too much free time on their hands. I mean, why waste lawyers when you can use them to sue?

It is unsettling when you can trademark or patent words of common usage. It's not so much the fault of Monster as it is the fault of intellectual property laws.

You can trademark a common single word in the English language? I thought it needs to be a phrase like "all the news that's fit to print" or an invented word like "eBay" or "head-fi" or something like that. You mean I can open the dictionary, pick a word, trademark it, then sue anyone who uses it?

Why doesn't Bazooka, as in the sub-woofer manufacturer, sue the chewing gum?

Quote:



You really can't trademark a common word, per se. Monster is abusing the system. From wikipedia:
"A common word, phrase, or other sign can only be removed from the public domain to the extent that a trademark owner is able to maintain exclusive rights over that sign in relation to certain products or services, assuming there are no other trademark objections." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark)
Clearly, no one is going to confuse Monster Cables with SnowMonsters (it's one key reason why one Bazooka doesn't sue the other). But Monster is making the case that people will, sueing a small company which they know have no snowball's chance in hell of having the resources to match Monster.

If Microsoft started using the term "Monster" in any form, I bet Monster (Cable) would not even dream of litigating. Friends, it should go without saying we have a law system geared for the wealthy.

Yeah, but surely Monster the job site can defend itself. Isn't it owned by one of the huge placement agencies?

Yes, Monster.com is a NASDAQ traded company. Monster.com probably deemed it cheaper/easier to settle out of court. It looks like the only provision for the settlement is to place a tiny "Monster Cable" link at the very bottom of their homepage. It appears Monster (Cable) didn't ask for much in the settlement. Much more, and Monster.com would've probably defended itself in a court of law.

The Brits have a great term for people like this:

WANKERS!

People still buy Monster Cable?

Quote:



Same people that buy Bose

Monster does indeed suck. Both their business practices and their cable quality (for the price).

lol @ Monsters Inc. on the lawsuit list.

As others have posted, you can trademark any word that no-one else has trademarked, but - especially if it's a commonly used word - you can't "sue anyone that uses it". (Well, you can sue anyone for anything, practically: I should say, you probably won't be _successful_ in suing anyone that uses it). A trademark basically protects you against others doing business similar to yours under the same name. You'd have to prove that the person / people you were suing were using the name / word in some way that was harmful to your business, not just that they were using it.