bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/05 15:28:12
(permalink)
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Copyright 2007 by Bitflipper
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
krizrox
Max Output Level: -35 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4046
- Joined: 2003/11/23 09:49:33
- Location: Elgin, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/05 16:19:35
(permalink)
I promised an update - here it is. I actually did contact Monster Cable. Got a response back in a few hours. On a Sunday no less. How's that for customer service?  Monster maintains that a lot of what is currently posted on the internet is rubbish. There are some older trademark stories that have been blown out of proportion by the people/companies that were involved and those have been copied and pasted and mutated ad nauseum over the years. On the other hand, Monster does actively protect their trademark. It's a little known fact that the Monster brand name applies to more than just cables. Monster is involved in a lot of different things (including, but not limited to, music, food, clothing, etc) and the Monster brand name or trademark is used for all of it. Here's an example: http://www.monstermusic.com I'm not in love with Monster Cable or suggesting they are without sin, but as a business owner myself, I believe that companies have the right to protect their interests. It goes beyond having the right to do it. If you're a publicly traded company, it's a necessity. I wonder how Cakewalk would respond if people started calling their businesses or products Cakewalk this or Cakewalk that? Agressively, I can assure you 
post edited by krizrox - 2007/08/05 16:29:01
Larry Kriz www.LnLRecording.com www.myspace.com/lnlrecording Sonar PE 8.5, Samplitude Pro 11, Sonic Core Scope Professional/XTC, A16 Ultra AD/DA, Intel DG965RY MOBO, Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz processor, XFX GeForce 7300 GT PCIe video card, Barracuda 750 & 320GB SATA drives, 4GB DDR Ram, Plextor DVD/CD-R burner.
|
jacktheexcynic
Max Output Level: -44.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3069
- Joined: 2004/07/07 11:47:11
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/05 17:18:39
(permalink)
i have a feeling that if i started a company catering cakes and called it cakewalk catering, that i probably would not get sued by cakewalk. i have a feeling that if i started a company called monster cake catering, i would probably get a cease and desist order shortly thereafter.
monster is a word. it is not a proper noun. if i start a company called "the", i do not have the right to sue people for using the word "the" in their business names. the word monster belongs to the english language. now if someone uses the words "monster cable" as part of their business name, then monster has a case. if they use "monster music" in the name, monster has a case. if they use the word "monster", monster should not have a case.
naturally, monster wants you to believe that this is all a big misunderstanding, like aliens at roswell or elvis sightings in alabama. they aren't trying to piss off customers, just shakedown businesses.
|
krizrox
Max Output Level: -35 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4046
- Joined: 2003/11/23 09:49:33
- Location: Elgin, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/05 21:00:02
(permalink)
http://www.mychildclothing.com/shop/CakeWalk/ Who knows - these guys seem to be immune For now. I think you might be wrong about the usage of words as trademarks (Apple comes to mind) but I'm not a lawyer (although I play one on TV ).
Larry Kriz www.LnLRecording.com www.myspace.com/lnlrecording Sonar PE 8.5, Samplitude Pro 11, Sonic Core Scope Professional/XTC, A16 Ultra AD/DA, Intel DG965RY MOBO, Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz processor, XFX GeForce 7300 GT PCIe video card, Barracuda 750 & 320GB SATA drives, 4GB DDR Ram, Plextor DVD/CD-R burner.
|
fep
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1186
- Joined: 2006/10/21 13:57:09
- Location: San Diego, California
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/05 22:08:25
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: krizrox
Monster is involved in a lot of different things (including, but not limited to, music, food, clothing, etc) and the Monster brand name or trademark is used for all of it.
That could be true as they sued music, food and clothing companies for $1000 plus 1% of their revenues. So to the extent that they got favorable settlements on those suits they now are involved in a lot of industries. And it is not just a bunch of internet rubbish as they claim. Here is an article from the San Francisco Chronical (whether or not that's rubbish I can't say): http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/08/BUG1J9N3C61.DTL&type=business
|
losguy
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5506
- Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
- Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/05 22:18:13
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: krizrox
I actually did contact Monster Cable. Got a response back in a few hours. On a Sunday no less. How's that for customer service?
Monster maintains that a lot of what is currently posted on the internet is rubbish. There are some older trademark stories that have been blown out of proportion by the people/companies that were involved and those have been copied and pasted and mutated ad nauseum over the years.
It's admirable of you to go to the source, Larry, and it's remarkable that they were so responsive. But really, what would you expect them to say? Let me tell you, it's their answer that is corporate rubbish. And I'm being nice. Rest assured, the United States Trademark Office website is not rubbish, and the official case agenda published there with Monster as plaintiff is nothing short of insane. [Edited for clarity.]
post edited by losguy - 2007/08/05 22:29:46
|
jacktheexcynic
Max Output Level: -44.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3069
- Joined: 2004/07/07 11:47:11
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/05 22:23:55
(permalink)
|
Joe Bravo
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1870
- Joined: 2004/01/27 14:43:37
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/05 22:51:16
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: krizrox
I think you might be wrong about the usage of words as trademarks (Apple comes to mind) but I'm not a lawyer (although I play one on TV ).
Aside from words and phrases, I remember reading somewhere that somebody had once gotten a trademark for a smell. And it wasn't perfume either. I don't remember what it was, but it seemed pretty run-o-the-mill to me at the time. And I know that MGM has had a rademark for that lion's roar you hear at the beginning of their old movies, so you can trademark sounds too. Strange world.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/05 23:09:45
(permalink)
It is true that trademarks must be defended aggressively, to avoid "dilution", meaning the trademark is lost due to unchallenged misuse. That's why "aspirin" is a generic term and no longer a trademark. If you let ANYONE infringe on your trademark, even a trivial infringement, it weakens your case if a nontrivial infringement occurs later.
But here's the other side of that view.
Around 1990 I was in Orlando when Universal Studios opened. There was a bit of a feud going on between them and Disney World, something about stealing employees or something. Anyway, the front-page news at the time was a PR score for Universal. It seems Disney had gone in and forced a daycare center to paint over pictures of Mickey Mouse, calling it trademark infringement. Photo of sobbing children, priceless. Universal comes in and grants the daycare center permission to use some of their trademarked cartoon characters. Major PR coup.
Anyone defending a trademark, patent or copyright has to weigh the consequences of aggressively defending their intellectual property. Monster Cable has made a really stupid PR move that will hurt sales. And to what benefit? A few bucks from Pixar so they can call their movie "Monsters, Inc"? Their actions -- and I don't care if it happened yesterday or ten years ago -- are unconscionable and it will be nothing but justice if their sales are hurt as a result. After Jack-in-the-Box killed some of its customers, they should have been forced out of business. After Firestone intentionally put defective tires on the market that killed people, they should have closed their doors for good. I say make 'em pay.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
mwd
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 627
- Joined: 2006/05/18 22:05:07
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/06 09:03:33
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: krizrox ~ Got a response back in a few hours. On a Sunday no less.... I believe that companies have the right to protect their interests. Good course of action Larry but the response you got was the one that Monster paid for and from an employee Monster also paid for. Companies do have the right to protect their legitimate interest which doesn't include owning common words of the English language. Otherwise you couldn't have Star Wars because of Star Trek. Couldn't have First Church of God because of Assembly of God. Couldn't have Super Sale because of Super Bowl. Monster Cable is way off track and ultimately will lose their cases that do go to court and many customers. But not before they scare many moms and pops into submission. A good litmus test would be "did you invent the word or phrase you are trying to trademark or copyright"?
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/06 09:30:58
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: krizrox
I promised an update - here it is.
I actually did contact Monster Cable. Got a response back in a few hours. On a Sunday no less. How's that for customer service?...
Oh, man. Larry, seriously, did you actually read THE COURT DOCUMENTS that my sig links to? Or the ACTUAL CORRESPONDENCE between monster and the Mad Martian monster shop? The stuff in those links is NOT propaganda or internet rumors or conspiracy theories. It is the actual documents from one case AND the actual list of companies being sued by Monster ON THE TRADEMARK OFFICE WEB SITE. Monster is suing, among hundreds of others: Disney's Monsters, Inc. Fenway Park's Green Monster A variety of Halloween and costume companies Scooby-Doo and the Monster of Mexico About a billion other COMPLETELY legitimate and patently non-infringing uses of an extremely commonplace and ancient word. Seriously, check them out. THIS BEEN GOTTEN TO THE BOTTOM OF ALREADY. It is inexcusable. They have no legitimate basis for trademark protection against people who use a common everyday word for its dictionary definition, and they certainly have no legitimate claim against usages that pre-date the existance of the company (Green Monster). Monster maintains that a lot of what is currently posted on the internet is rubbish. There are some older trademark stories that have been blown out of proportion by the people/companies that were involved and those have been copied and pasted and mutated ad nauseum over the years.
Larry, passing along this corporate spin is misleading to the point of being irresponsible. Did you read the the links that started this thread? They are actual scans of the actual correspondence between Monster's corporate officers and the defendant of one of these shakedown cases. They are NOT "mutated" or "overblown." Read the documents. They are disgusting-- the court filings say regarding this halloween shop that never had any contact with monster "at all material times, defendant acted in bad faith, oppressively and maliciously towards plaintiff, with intent to injure plaintiff, thereby entitling plaintiff to treble damages against defendants"... and this against an unemployed guy with an unprofitable hobbyist side business. Sounds a lot like a typical home-based recording studio. Suppose I trademark "Larry" and sue you for a portion of your business? That is exactly what Monster is doing except instead of using a common name, they have used a common word. Monster is not protecting business interests-- everything they are doing is anticompetitive, corrupt, and completely the inverse of the spirit of free enterprise. It is a parasitic, destructive endeavor designed to shake down legitimate businesses that create legitimate value and is designed to siphon off those legitimate earnings by gaming the system. And a google search of "Cakewalk" turns up about 5 million examples of uses of the term that Twelve Tone Systems is NOT suing. If they DID decide to go and sue dance studios and the like then I'd be boycotting them, as well. You basically got fed some vague PR line and bought it hook, line and sinker. Their vague, broad dismissal "rubbish on the internet" is itself "rubbish" from the internet. I'm surprised that you would fall for that. Cheers.
post edited by yep - 2007/08/06 12:51:26
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/06 10:10:19
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: krizrox
...I think you might be wrong about the usage of words as trademarks (Apple comes to mind) but I'm not a lawyer (although I play one on TV ).
You *can* absolutely trademark common words, and you can and should absolutely protect your company's name, reputation, and business image by defending your trademarks, registered or not. The tricky part of using a common word as your company name is that obviously you are not entitled to sole universal ownership over a word like "apple" or "Monster," even if you register it as a trademark, any more than you could claim ownership of a G chord or a I-IV-V progression by writing a song that contained those elements. McDonald's for instance has gotten tangled up in a few trademark disputes with people who are named McDonald and who start a business (can you not call your business "McDonald's Auto Repair?"). The usual litmus test has to do with things like whether the auto shop was deliberately trying to capitalize on the restaurant name and/or create confusion in the marketplace (use of Golden arches or "billions served" would be a tip-off). But clearly it is possible for a Frank McDonald to set up a repair shop without diluting or fraudulently capitalizing on a hamburger chain. Similarly it is possible for people to sell apples and include images of and words referring to apples in their business name and literature without infringing on a computer company's trademark. One very easy way to avoid having any gray area is to name your business something like "Kleenex" or "Verizon" or "Lunestra." Nobody else can claim legitimate use of a made-up word. But if you choose to pick an already common, iconic, and memorable word to name your business, then one of the risks is that there are likely to be a whole lot of other businesses legitimately using that word as well. You all get the value and benefit of having a certain amount of branding already done for you by the language itself, but you also have take steps to clearly differentiate yourself since your name is so common. All of the above is not just established law but also common sense. Monster has unfortunately chosen not to follow either one but rather to try and hijack a common word and claim it as their own intellectual property. Larry is correct that it *is* possible to maintain a trademark of a common word, but jack is correct that Monster is not pursuing a legitimate trademark claim but rather just trying to extort money from anyone who uses the English language.
|
mwd
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 627
- Joined: 2006/05/18 22:05:07
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/06 10:17:14
(permalink)
Yep... should I copyright or trademark this Dmaj chord?
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/06 14:45:11
(permalink)
Already taken. But I think Dmaj7 is available.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
losguy
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5506
- Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
- Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/06 16:30:46
(permalink)
Great explanation of the matter at hand, yep. ORIGINAL: yep
The tricky part of using a common word as your company name is that obviously you are not entitled to sole universal ownership over a word like "apple" or "Monster," even if you register it as a trademark, any more than you could claim ownership of a G chord or a I-IV-V progression by writing a song that contained those elements.
I had heard somewhere that the Rolling Stones managed to copyright just the starting riff of "Satisfaction", the case being that those three notes played that way could pertain to nothing other than that song. (Naturally, if true, that would be in addition to the copyright on the entire song.) I don't know if it's true, but it would be interesting to verify (though slightly OT since it deals with a copyright and not a TM).
post edited by losguy - 2007/08/06 16:38:15
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/06 17:09:04
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: losguy
Great explanation of the matter at hand, yep.
ORIGINAL: yep
The tricky part of using a common word as your company name is that obviously you are not entitled to sole universal ownership over a word like "apple" or "Monster," even if you register it as a trademark, any more than you could claim ownership of a G chord or a I-IV-V progression by writing a song that contained those elements.
I had heard somewhere that the Rolling Stones managed to copyright just the starting riff of "Satisfaction", the case being that those three notes played that way could pertain to nothing other than that song. (Naturally, if true, that would be in addition to the copyright on the entire song.) I don't know if it's true, but it would be interesting to verify (though slightly OT since it deals with a copyright and not a TM).
Maybe in the UK but in the US there is no provision in copyright law for such a thing. In the US (and I think in most countries) you can only copyright entire songs, not individual melodies nor phrases. Exactly what constitutes a "song" is a topic for another thread, but it usually has to include both words and music. Interestingly, it is possible to register trademarks for certain sounds (for instance Harley Davidson has trademarked their exhaust sound, i think). How and if those will hold up in court and under what circumstances is a whole nother matter. I think at least part of the Harley-Davidson thing was a publicity stunt, like insuring a movie star's legs for a million dollars or whatever. Either way I'm quite certain that the notes B, C#, D, C# can be and have been used in that sequence many, many times both before and since the Stones, and that any blanket claim to "own" those three notes is completely unenforceable (which does not mean that someone who ripped off the riff couldn't be held accountable, but the same could be true for any distinctive riff-- say "superfreak" or "ice ice baby" to name a couple). The application of the laws regarding this stuff is generally a lot more sensible and less esoteric than it's made out to be. If you rip something off you are generally liable and if you don't rip something off then you are usually in the clear unless a really extraordinary coincidence has occurred. It is ultimately up to a human judge or jury to evaluate the circumstances and the material and to decide if the copyright has been violated or trademark infringed, and most of the time those evaluations are ultimately commonsense and fairly straightforward decisions. Cheers.
|
Roflcopter
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6767
- Joined: 2007/04/27 19:10:06
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/06 17:24:37
(permalink)
In the US (and I think in most countries) you can only copyright entire songs, not individual melodies nor phrases. The first 9 notes of Fur Elise (Beethoven) have been a trademark since 2003. http://www.furelise.com/
I'm a perfectionist, and perfect is a skinned knee.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/06 21:50:51
(permalink)
That's a pretty good trick, seeing as how both Ludwig and Elise have been dead for 150 years.
Maybe I should nail the first three chords of Louie Louie while they're still available.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/06 23:46:15
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Roflcopter
In the US (and I think in most countries) you can only copyright entire songs, not individual melodies nor phrases.
The first 9 notes of Fur Elise (Beethoven) have been a trademark since 2003.
http://www.furelise.com/
To clarify some important points: 1. This does not affect the public right to use this public domain composition 2. Those notes are not copyrighted, they are trademarked (there is a big difference) 3. Anyone can still play, record, perform, and/or release an original recording of Fur Elise in part or in its entirety 4. Anyone can still use those notes in a musical composition or performance 5. Anyone who uses the composition does not owe any sort of royalties to the trademark holder. It's important to understand that the "trademark" on those nine notes does NOT mean that the company that owns the trademark has exclusive ownership of them, anymore than Apple has exclusive ownership of the word "apple" or Monster has exclusive ownership of the word monster or McDonald's has exclusive ownership of the name McDonald. If someone owned the *copyright* to that melody then nobody else could use it without permission (which neither the EU nor the US will recognize). The case cited is one where some company or whatever uses those nine notes as their jingle. Another company could use the whole thing in any other capacity, but cannot (in the EU) use that melody in a way that would infringe on the trademark (which does not even strictly mean that they cannot use those notes, just that the use is restricted to ways that do not infringe upon the trademark). The decision to allow a company to trademark a portion of a public domain composition may or may not be stupid (I'm not sure it is, personally), but the composition is still in the public domain and the public is in no way prevented from using it. Let me use a silly example as an analogy of how trademarks work: Suppose Calvin Klein comes up with a perfume called "Be." They make weird black and white commercials of people staring at a beach with a voiceover that says: "To be or not to be... just Be. By Calvin Klein." They register the quote and the ad campaign as a trademark, NOT in any way that gives them full or even partial ownership of Hamlet, but merely so that you or I cannot create a perfume or some other product called "To Be" or whatever and use the same quote to try and confuse people into buying our competing product. The critical difference between this and a COPYRIGHT is that anyone can still use the phrase "to be or not to be" in literature or everyday parlance or in corporate communications or journalism or even in certain kinds of advertizing capacities so long as it doesn't infringe on Calvin Klein's trademarked ad campaign. Excatly how "infringement* is established is a *little* gray, but it basically comes down to whether you are creating confusion in the marketplace or using the tagline in such a way that people will think your product is somehow affiliated with the Calvin Klein one. All of the above is perfectly legitimate and reasonable use and protection of trademarks, both legal and common-sense. What would NOT be legitimate would be if Calvin Klein were to then go out and sue anyone who quoted Hamlet or staged, filmed, or published the play, i.e. if Calvin Klein tried to assert exclusive ownership of the line as though they had a copyright on it. Monster has basically been doing an even more egregious version of this by trying to effectively assert complete ownership of the word "Monster." People sometimes tend to conflate copyright with trademark and they are not the same thing. A copyright gives you the complete rights to something and generally means that anyone who wants to use it has to get your permission or at least pay you certain prescribed royalties. A trademark refers to some kind of mark (such as a company name, logo, jingle or slogan) that you use to identify your company or product in the marketplace. You do not necessarily have any exclusive rights to that image or text or whatever, but other people or organizations are not allowed to use it to capitalize on your name or reputation. If it is a totally original word such as "Texaco" then you pretty much have exclusive rights only because it would be pretty hard to demonstrate any legitimate use of the word other than to refer to your trademark. If you trademark a commonplace term such as "apple" then people are only prohibited from using it in ways that would cause confusion. E.g. they can still sell apple pie or candy-apple lip gloss or hard apple cider or write songs about apples but they could not make an apple mp3 player or computer and they'd probably run into trouble if they tried to make apple office furniture. Cheers.
post edited by yep - 2007/08/07 00:15:05
|
Ognis
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5129
- Joined: 2006/08/03 21:52:42
- Location: Memphis, Tennessee
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/07 00:14:02
(permalink)
Elise is on all kinds of cell phones, and cheap keyboards. It's pretty much all over the place.
|
Nate
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 726
- Joined: 2003/11/09 03:56:02
- Location: North Carolina
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/07 09:43:26
(permalink)
I had heard somewhere that the Rolling Stones managed to copyright just the starting riff of "Satisfaction", the case being that those three notes played that way could pertain to nothing other than that song. (Naturally, if true, that would be in addition to the copyright on the entire song.) I don't know if it's true, but it would be interesting to verify (though slightly OT since it deals with a copyright and not a TM). The song is copywritten. The riff is not. If Micky and Keefy decided to sing that riff...like a melody...they could copywrite that, and thus protect those notes under law. If some one else played it on an instrument, then the melody would hold in court, and the perp would owe them royalties. The reality is, like a bunch of guitar riffs from the golden era...like Satisfaction, Smoke on the Water etc...the branding of the tune with the band with the song is so indelible as to good as a copywrite. Only an idiot would attempt it in a marketing campagne.
|
Nate
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 726
- Joined: 2003/11/09 03:56:02
- Location: North Carolina
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/07 10:06:36
(permalink)
They register the quote and the ad campaign as a trademark, In this scenario CK couldn't register the quote. They can request a service mark on the Perfume. But the advert, the campagne and such stuff are not able to be trademarked or otherwise protected. The Perfume in the advert is tradmarked, and the usage of it would have a service mark...which for all in this case would be a deterrent to other companies attempting to appropriate or otherwise clone the advert. Excatly how "infringement* is established is a *little* gray, but it basically comes down to whether you are creating confusion in the marketplace or using the tagline in such a way that people will think your product is somehow affiliated with the Calvin Klein one. I think you are confusing law here. Toys R Us has proven infrigement on their service mark a 100 times over. All one has to do is reverse the R in a phrase and they can beat you senseless in court...and they have numerous times. Apple and the Beatles Apple have settled round 30 of that Service Mark infringment. Over the years Apple Computers has paid the Beatles Apple millions for infringment...until last time. Surprisingly to me, Magritte who painted the original Apple that inspired McCartney's Apple, has not said one thing in court or in public about the appropriation of his works. Monster has basically been doing an even more egregious version of this by trying to effectively assert complete ownership of the word "Monster." The company isn't stupid. They have no designs to sue Monster Truck Rallies and other non related events or products. They do sue and attempt to block the usage of their Service Mark Monster as it relates to Musical or Technical pursuits. I agree with them on this. People like to get all huffy about it them being so agressive. I don't. They have to protect that mark in order to keep their brand as identified in the market place as it is these days. IOW's how many people attempt to take the name *RCA* each year? No very many...and none successfully for the last 50 years. Nor can they appropriate that little deaf doggie listening to the gramophone record player....even though it's archaic and not used in campagne's by RCA anymore they are quite aggressively protecting the service mark. it's part of the reason why we saw a guy sitting in a chair for the Memorex adverts....Memorex attempted to use a look a like dog and cassette deck image...they got pounded in court by RCA lawyers....Yet no one seems to have a problem with that or RCA's protecting of their marks. Yet Monster does the same thing, and many people get all incensed.
|
losguy
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5506
- Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
- Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/07 14:07:55
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: yep
Interestingly, it is possible to register trademarks for certain sounds (for instance Harley Davidson has trademarked their exhaust sound, i think). How and if those will hold up in court and under what circumstances is a whole nother matter. I think at least part of the Harley-Davidson thing was a publicity stunt, like insuring a movie star's legs for a million dollars or whatever. Thanks for clarifying, yep. I get the impression that you've had to deal with this sort of thing for real. Now that you say this, I wonder if I just remembered wrong, and they had actually gotten a trademark on that riff?
The application of the laws regarding this stuff is generally a lot more sensible and less esoteric than it's made out to be. If you rip something off you are generally liable and if you don't rip something off then you are usually in the clear unless a really extraordinary coincidence has occurred. It is ultimately up to a human judge or jury to evaluate the circumstances and the material and to decide if the copyright has been violated or trademark infringed, and most of the time those evaluations are ultimately commonsense and fairly straightforward decisions.
I think that there will always be matters and material that can't be given justice in language. In those cases, thank goodness that we still have the option to obtain decisions rendered by humans... hopefully rational ones (the decisions and the humans making them). This reminds me of a quote that I know is true: A question arose in a certain case as to how to define pornography in legal language. (I know, you can quote Webster, but we're talking about language that the lawyers for two parties in a case can agree on.) The judge overseeing the case resolved it by saying, "I can't describe it for you in terms, but I know it when I see it."
|
losguy
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5506
- Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
- Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/07 14:12:38
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Nate
IOW's how many people attempt to take the name *RCA* each year? No very many...and none successfully for the last 50 years. Nor can they appropriate that little deaf doggie listening to the gramophone record player....even though it's archaic and not used in campagne's by RCA anymore they are quite aggressively protecting the service mark. it's part of the reason why we saw a guy sitting in a chair for the Memorex adverts....Memorex attempted to use a look a like dog and cassette deck image...they got pounded in court by RCA lawyers....Yet no one seems to have a problem with that or RCA's protecting of their marks.
Yet Monster does the same thing, and many people get all incensed.
It's not the same thing. In this case, RCA and Memorex are selling products and operating in the same general domain. Monster, OTOH, is shaking down mom & pop shops with absurd claims of domain infringement. Not to mention that they are modern manifestations of snake oil salesmen. That's another topic, but nevertheless makes their actions all the more evil.
|
ArrowHead
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 231
- Joined: 2004/02/20 02:48:54
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/07 16:47:02
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: yep
Monster is suing, among hundreds of others:
Fenway Park's Green Monster
Wow, that big foam wall must really be infringing on their business, eh? Leave Wally alone, already. I'm pretty sure that with trademarks, even once you've registered a trademark effectively it still won't take priority over someone who has previously sold goods in the same market under the same name. I know it works this way with band name trademarks. Therefore, couldn't someone show prior use and turn the tables to force Monster Cables from using the name Monster in their own market?
|
Nate
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 726
- Joined: 2003/11/09 03:56:02
- Location: North Carolina
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/07 17:15:31
(permalink)
It's not the same thing. In this case, RCA and Memorex are selling products and operating in the same general domain. Monster, OTOH, is shaking down mom & pop shops with absurd claims of domain infringement. It's called brand management. RCA doesn't have the same issues becuase Mom and Pops know they have a popcicles chance in hell of winning...however with Monster they think they can beat them. Most of the time they are wrong. Not to mention that they are modern manifestations of snake oil salesmen. That's another topic, but nevertheless makes their actions all the more evil. No it doesn't. It's percieved value being marketed to nth degree. Monster is a voluntary purchase last I checked. Much of there sales are based on peoples comfort at buying something they trust. And within the retail music market, trusting a product sells a gazillion more than anything else does...including sound. So unless you are one of those loony tuners who go into Nordstrom and scream at the clerks for selling shirts at $95 that cost $1.50 to make, ship, and market, then I think you are being purposely obtuse about monster and want to know why.
|
mwd
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 627
- Joined: 2006/05/18 22:05:07
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/07 18:14:47
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Nate ~ It's called brand management. I respect your opinion Nate but I don't call it brand management I call it extortion (attempted robbery, theft... take your pick). If Monster Cable has a cute little Monster or some logo they designed to represent their business I support their right to protect that logo or image as part of their own image. If they call themselves Monster Cable, Monster Music Products, Monster Pro Audio I will also support their right to protect those identities. But when they try to claim ownership to a name that existed before they did and that they themselves did not originate or conceive not only can I not support them but I would resist and fight them in any way I could. Apple vs Apple is a totally different scenario. One they have been trying to sort out for decades. Apple vs Apple pre-dates the internet, domain names and originally was not an issue because these were totally non-competitive, non-related businesses. Computers had absolutely nothing to do with record companies. But times have changed and those lines have blurred. When the World says "Apple" you have 2 huge companies fighting for the right to be the one being talking about. Monster Cable is trying to be retroactive and grandfather themselves in. If you say Monster you mean Monster Cable. Thankfully no matter how hard they try or how many lawyers they have.... it'll never happen. There are far too many people on the planet to which monster does not mean Monster Cable... nor will it ever.
post edited by mwd - 2007/08/07 18:27:49
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/07 18:15:23
(permalink)
There was a lot of erroneous information in this post but this is by far the most egregious and the only one that is really relevant to the OP: ORIGINAL: Nate
...The company isn't stupid. They have no designs to sue Monster Truck Rallies and other non related events or products. They do sue and attempt to block the usage of their Service Mark Monster as it relates to Musical or Technical pursuits... Try reading what everyone else is actually talking about before announcing what's really going on. If you click the link in my sig (or the one that started the thread) you visit the US the trademark office website and see EXACTLY which companies Monster is suing, and it includes scores of monster truck rallies (yes, specifically), halloween shops, scooby-doo cartoons, special-effects companies, horror movies, and so on. The facts have been provided for your convenience. Everyone else here is discussing them. Cheers.
post edited by yep - 2007/08/07 19:10:58
|
ArrowHead
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 231
- Joined: 2004/02/20 02:48:54
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/07 18:18:28
(permalink)
I still don't understand why they would sue Wally the Green Monster. I practiced right behind the Green Monster for years, and in that whole time he was the only one we could depend on to show up for EVERY rehearsal.
What threat could a great Boston/Baseball institution possibly have for a music/clothing/cable enterprise?
|
losguy
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5506
- Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
- Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/08/07 19:31:07
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Nate
It's not the same thing. In this case, RCA and Memorex are selling products and operating in the same general domain. Monster, OTOH, is shaking down mom & pop shops with absurd claims of domain infringement.
It's called brand management. RCA doesn't have the same issues becuase Mom and Pops know they have a popcicles chance in hell of winning...however with Monster they think they can beat them. Most of the time they are wrong.
Not to mention that they are modern manifestations of snake oil salesmen. That's another topic, but nevertheless makes their actions all the more evil.
No it doesn't. It's percieved value being marketed to nth degree. Monster is a voluntary purchase last I checked. Much of there sales are based on peoples comfort at buying something they trust. And within the retail music market, trusting a product sells a gazillion more than anything else does...including sound.
So unless you are one of those loony tuners who go into Nordstrom and scream at the clerks for selling shirts at $95 that cost $1.50 to make, ship, and market, then I think you are being purposely obtuse about monster and want to know why.
Respectfully disagree. Reasons have already been discussed in this thread many times. I'll just leave it at that.
post edited by losguy - 2007/08/07 19:39:11
|