[jude]

Just saw posts about this case at Audio Asylum, and thought I'd provide the link here:

http://www.madmartian.com/legal/

A couple of things of note to me:

1. The site pointed to from monster.biz has nothing to do with audio, electronics, cables, etc. It seems to be about, well, monsters.
2. Why is this going to court? Isn't there a domain dispute protocol through ICANN?

I like the quote at the top of the page:
Quote:

"It is important that trademarks not be transformed from rights against unfair competition to rights to control language." - Mark Lemley, Professor of Law, UC Berkeley

Please keep your follow-up comments civil, as I have a feeling I know where most of us will stand on this issue, and -- seriously -- I don't feel like being sued. And before you say something like, "But they can't sue you for....," I'd encourage you to check out this case.

Again, let's discuss this, but keep in mind that I don't want to get sued. So if we discuss this, let's focus on the issue(s), not the emotions regarding any particular company.

 

[elipsis]

To be honest, they are probably going the legal route because they feel it's easier and quicker.

Domain disputes via ICAAN carry no penalty, and are far easier for the private citizen to represent themselves in. If that same citizen gets served with a letter threatening legal action, they're far more likely to fold immediately.

The costs of litigation are prohibitive, and they could be left enormously out of pocket if they lose.

 

[gaineso]

Having read through most of that stuff, including the entire complaint, I fail to see what the case is.

How has a web site selling "Monsters", ghouls and other creepy things "Danmaged" Monster Cable?????

What about Monster.com, the job search site? Are they next?

I see a bunch of attorneys with way too little to do. I hope the courts will recognize this for what is is and throw it out so hard those lawyers will bounce on their heads all the way down the courthouse steps.

My opinion of this doesn't have anything to do with my opinion of Monster Cable products. All the cables in my main system are Monster. This is strictly a superfluous suit by someone who needs to get a life.

Shakespeare was right.

 

[erix]

monster.jerks

ok,
erix

 

[squirt]

Like some of the managers i work for, Monster is showing signs of RDS (Reality Detachment Syndrome.) The main symptoms are the inability to distinguish the difference between common sense and stupidity, right from wrong, combined with an overwhelming sense of arrogance to fuel their over inflated egos...this same affliction strikes many companies in one form or another (Enron, World Com and so on)...

Too many otherwise once good companies fall prey to their own egos which eventually leads to this kind of conduct which only serves to make them look like fools in the eyes of there own customers not to mention there own employees.
The problem starts with the top managers who spent too much time at the top of the food chain...the solution also starts there but how do you fix a broken machine with another broken machine? Best to start with a new machine...

 

[john_jcb]

I once worked for a company that was very concerned about their name I can understand some of their motivations. The problem we had was that our name, because of our industry leadership, became synomous with a process. It was like Xerox is used interchangeably with photostatic copy and is used as a verb. This becomes a problem if you do not address it and it becomes public usage and public domain. There is a certain amount of paranoia that takes over when you are in the middle of this sort of thing. It is amplified when money is tight and you see threats everywhere. The owners of a name feel that they must challenge every breach no matter how ridiculous it seems to an outsider. Having been on both sides this is truly an issue of perception and what side of the fence you are on.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by john_jcb ....The problem we had was that our name, because of our industry leadership, became synomous with a process. It was like Xerox is used interchangeably with photostatic copy and is used as a verb. This becomes a problem if you do not address it and it becomes public usage and public domain....Having been on both sides this is truly an issue of perception and what side of the fence you are on.

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Main Entry: xe·rox Pronunciation: 'zir-"äks, 'zE-"räks Function: transitive verb Etymology: from Xerox Date: 1965 1 : to copy on a Xerox copier 2 : to make (a copy) on a Xerox copier Main Entry: 1mon·ster Pronunciation: 'män(t)-st&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English monstre, from Middle French, from Latin monstrum omen, monster, from monEre to warn -- more at MIND Date: 14th century 1 a : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure b : one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character 2 : a threatening force 3 a : an animal of strange or terrifying shape b : one unusually large for its kind 4 : something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty 5 : one that is highly successful

[/size]

The Xerox example does not apply here, the way I see it. Monster is a word dating back to the 14th century (as shown in the above dictionary entry), and is a word used very commonly in the language since well before the time of Monster Cable (the company), and even now -- after the founding of the Monster Cable company -- outside the context of audio and electronics. Use of the word Xerox -- even if it has become generically associated with a process -- in a company name or domain name would be a far better case on the company's (Xerox's) behalf, for example.

My companies have also been on both sides of this issue. Again, in this case, I don't think there's a case for the company (Monster Cable), and it's my hope that the courts see it this way. It is my opinion that Monster Cable is expecting the other (smaller) company to fold under the threat of high legal costs, and the general drudgery of such affairs.

As per the quote I included in my post opening this thread, this seems to me like a control of language issue, not a protection of trademark. Monster.biz points to a site that markets monster-related products (and I'm not talking about power conditioners or audio cables, but in line with the traditional definition of the word "monster").

 

[john_jcb]

Jude

I agree with you on the Monster issue.

I was just pointing out how myopic companies can become when they feel threatened. Paranoia is an accurate description as well. My boss would even go after people that even used the same color as us in their logo.

We also were a division of a very large corporation and often we would use our on staff lawyers to intimidate competitors. The threat of a long expensive civil case will impact a smaller firm that does not have lawyers on staff. It is not right but that is the way it is.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by john_jcb I was just pointing out how myopic companies can become when they feel threatened. Paranoia is an accurate description as well.

I know you're watching me.

 

[Nezer]

The problem isn't with upper management... It's much worse than that...

The problem is the USPTO. These braindead morons hand anyone with enough cash a patent or trademarkwithout even thinking about it. How the hell can someone tradmark the word 'Monster'? 'Monster Cable", sure, but this isn't a dispute over a domain called monstercable, or monster-cable, now is it?

DOWN WITH THE USPTO!!!

 

[TimSchirmer]

Hmm...I'll bet glow in the dark eyeballs from that guy's site will make my system sound much better than monster cables ever will.

 

[john_jcb]

Quote:

Originally posted by jude I know you're watching me.

Im always watching.

 

[CaptBubba]

Quote:

Originally posted by jude I know you're watching me.

At least he doesn't eat your potatoes...

 

[gaineso]

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptBubba At least he doesn't eat your potatoes...

But does he have 3 eyes and breath fire??

 

[gaineso]

Quote:

Originally posted by jude I know you're watching me.

The question is not "Am I paranoid?"

The question is "Am I paranoid ENOUGH?"