They're suing a WALL in Boston. How is that brand management?

In the corporate domain, if I am able to copywrite my brand name, and service mark my image that usurps all other claims to that name from the point of which the copywrite is officially filed. In otherwords, if you were Nate Audio for the last 35 years, and I became Nate Audio last year, and I went and legally protected the name across the country as a legal trade and service mark...you have to surrender the usage. It's a completely justified and legal process. You complaining says more about your lack of business sense rather than any moral action on my part. You weren't smart enough and I was.

IANAL and all, but are you sure it works that way?

I always thought you couldn't register a trademark that was already in use, whether that mark had been previously registered or not. After all, trademark laws are meant to prevent confusion in the marketplace, and what could be more confusing than a new business taking up the name of an established one?

ORIGINAL: Nate
...In the corporate domain, if I am able to copywrite my brand name, and service mark my image that usurps all other claims to that name from the point of which the copywrite is officially filed. In otherwords, if you were Nate Audio for the last 35 years, and I became Nate Audio last year, and I went and legally protected the name across the country as a legal trade and service mark...you have to surrender the usage....

Okay, this is not AT ALL established law, at least not in the US nor in international law. You have a lot of misinformation in these posts about trademark law. Trademark registration, much like copyright registration, does not convey ownership, it merely registers it in an official repository. If you registered Nate Audio first but there is some other company that has been demostrably doing business using Nate Audio for 30 years (even as an unregistered trademark) then the courts *will* recognize that there is a genuine dispute, just as if I sent in an unpublished manuscript by another author and registered it as my own, the simple fact that I REGISTERED it does not necessarily mean that I am ENTITLED to it.

Multiple institutions can and do have the same or similar trademarks. Witness the fact that there are registered trademarks on file for Scooby-Doo and the MONSTER of Mexico, Discovery Channel's MONSTER Garage, Fenway Park's Green MONSTER, the MONSTER.COM job search site, Sesame Street's Cookie MONSTER, and yes, Monster Cable. All of these trademarks have been peacefully co-existing except one, which is suing all the others. Guess which? Here's a clue-- it's NEITHER the oldest, best-recognized, largest nor most unique of those.

...There are occasions when Monster has tried some muckity muck with the courts and radically failed......I don't recall the business...but it was something like Monster Foods or something...operated in some town in the middle of nowhere for 50 years. Monster sued claiming infringement. They were asked to leave, and had to pay all the legal costs. The mistake cost them about $250K...

Will you please READ THE SIMPLE FACTS before asserting your vague and erroneous rememberances?

Monster is pursuing HUNDREDS of completely baseless shakedown lawsuits. They have no merit, and no chance of winning in court, they are baldly designed to extort settlements from everyone from massive corporations to mom-and-pop corner businesses. Calling this "business sense" is like applying that term to a mafia protection racket. Calling it a "branding strategy" is like calling Chinese poison labelled "toothpaste" a branding strategy.

...I would say within the audio markets Monster is justified. Outside of that market, I think he's smoking crack to an extent. ...

Of course it would be justified in the audio market. If they were merely selling overpriced audio snake oil and making sure that their position were not diluted I'd congratulate them on their success and leave it at that. BUT THEY'RE NOT SUING AUDIO COMPANIES. They're suing everyone who uses the word Monster in any capacity including institutions who have been using this ancient and common word and have had registered trademarks since before Monster existed.

Seriously, before your next post, please read what we are talking about here. This is not some looney left anti-corporate woowoo or conspiracy theory hippy-crunchy stuff. This is a crooked corporate leech who is trying to parasite legitimate earnings from legitimate businesses by forcing them to either pay off Monster's lawyers or else get bogged down in an extortionary lawsuit. REAL BUSINESSES that actually need to generate value for their customers and revenue for their shareholders are forced to either send the officers and executives out-of-state for lengthy legal stalling tactics or else pay off Monster.

Monster is not pursuing legitimate claims. Whenever one of their own cases is in danger of actually going to court (where they will surely lose), Monster files for an extension OF THEIR OWN COMPLAINT, to keep it OUT of court. YOU CAN READ THE APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION ON THE TRADEMARK OFFICE WEBSITE.

Seriously, the facts are plain. They are not unclear or murky or dependent on or subject to your or my vague recollection of some legal muckity-muck. If you wish to defend Monster at least get yourself educated so you know what you're defending, because it's not what you think.

Cheers.

ORIGINAL: ArrowHead

They're suing a WALL in Boston. How is that brand management?

The wall, at all material times, acted in bad faith, oppressively and maliciously towards Monster Cable.

At least, that's what the complaint says.

Cheers.

ORIGINAL: yep

ORIGINAL: ArrowHead
They're suing a WALL in Boston. How is that brand management?

The wall, at all material times, acted in bad faith, oppressively and maliciously towards Monster Cable.
At least, that's what the complaint says.
Cheers.

For those coming in late, this means that Monster is running a mailmerge on any business with "monster" in its name, in any form. They don't even bother to change the language of the threat letters that they send out. (That would cost them too much in lawyer fees. )

And I'm sorry, but the claims that they make about their cables ARE like snake oil. Really, the way they sound, I wouldn't put it past them to start claiming that the copper weave creates mini-wormholes and makes the electrons go down the cable faster than the speed of light.

Mobster Cable

Who do these Monster guys think they are anyway.... Waves?

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Know what would be cool? Print up some "Boycott Monster Cable" stickers and pass them out to musicians so that they can slap them onto Monster display racks in stores...

Come, now. Let's take the high road here. It's not the fault of the stores and most of them are just trying to get by much like the myriad businesses that Monster is suing. If you want to make a bumper sticker or a t-shirt, that's cool, but let's not go sabatoging businesses to protest a company that sabotages businesses. (I know that wasn't your intent, bitflipper).

Seriously, tell the clerks who direct you towards the Monster rack what's going on. Encourage them to check out the Madmartian web site. I know of more than one GC employee who felt bad about previous sales of Monster Cables once they found out what was going on. And those sales clerks have no reason to feel bad, but if they can be persuaded to reconsider selling the monster hype, I think it *will* make a difference.

Cheers.

ORIGINAL: bitflipper ~ I like the "Boycott Monster Cable" tee-shirt idea, though.

Be sure to get Monster's permission to put their name on the Tee.

That's a truly delicious idea. Even if they sue to make you give up the domain, they'd have to live with the publicity from shutting down boycottmonstercable.com. That might even raise the issue across the quantum threshhold of newsworthiness and earn a mention in the mainstream press. It would certainly make it into Slashdot if nothing else.

ORIGINAL: Nate
...I'll leave it at this: The courts determine if someone or some group/corporate/LLC or what ever are abusing the system. Everyone bleating about it means nothing in light of the continued court cases...

Jeez, man. WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE FRIGGEN DETAILS BEFORE POSTING?

These are NOT court cases. Monster is doing everything in their power to keep these cases OUT of the courts. These are SHAKEDOWN lawsuits. Their objective is NOT to protect a trademark nor to get their day in court. When defendents try to take it to court MONSTER PAYS OFF THE DEFENDENTS TO KEEP IT OUT OF COURT. THEIR OWN LAWSUITS.

THEY FIGHT TO KEEP OUT OF COURT. IF FIGHTING FAILS THEY PAY OFF THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SUING SO THAT THE DEFENDENTS WILL AGREE NOT TO GO TO COURT. FOR REAL.

You keep talking as though we're debating whether Monster is going "overboard" on trademark protection or whether they should have a right to pursue redress through the courts. None of this is the case. These are straight-up shakedowns. Monster wants to keep them *out of* court. Don't take my word for it. Read the filings on the trademark office website.

Cheers.

These are NOT court cases. Monster is doing everything in their power to keep these cases OUT of the courts. These are SHAKEDOWN lawsuits. Their objective is NOT to protect a trademark nor to get their day in court. When defendents try to take it to court MONSTER PAYS OFF THE DEFENDENTS TO KEEP IT OUT OF COURT. THEIR OWN LAWSUITS.

Whatever Yep. Screaming doesn't make your point better.

There are legal precidents against filing malicious lawsuits. And while I do agree the Monster Co. is quite adept at keeping there lawsuit filings under the radar, if they are hitting up people just to attack them as you suggest, then that will come to light in the process. And if it's not then the people whose are getting filed against should get a better lawyer that knows how to surface that behavior, and file a countersuit against them. Additionally they should be able to shine a light on Monsters practices ( if proven illegal) and block any future attempts.

And in this day, if you can find the info, then so can anyone, including Mom and Pops sitting in their Monster Plumbing Service. The issue I see with all the Monster crap flying around is that people probably have a difficult time getting hard legal evidence of malicious practices versus hersay of said actions. Post like yours contribute to the heresay evidence.

I do know for my business that if someone came after me with a lawsuit, I would just turn it over to my lawyer and his office. They are expierienced enough to prevent frivilous lawsuits from getting through the system or getting to the point of costing us money (lawsuit money...not retainer/practice monies). Aside from that...any lawyer who has worked in the insurance/workman's comp industry knows exactly how to defend, stop and prevent frivilous and malicious lawsuits.

Sorry, but I judge companies by ethical standards, not on what their lawyers are or are not able to get away with.

And while I do agree the Monster Co. is quite adept at keeping there lawsuit filings under the radar, if they are hitting up people just to attack them as you suggest, then that will come to light in the process.

As consumers we are in the court of public opinion, not a legal court. I see no reason to see what "come(s) to light in the process" as you put it.

There is a world of evidence showing that Monster Cable shakes down other companies, and for that, I will boycott them. As consumers there is nothing wrong with jumping to conclusions (even though I don't think we're even doing that).

Don't harp on us for complaining about unethical business practices. If Monster Cable is getting a bad wrap, it's on their hands to clean up their image, not ours.

Monster is filing extortionary shakedown lawsuits. What is your point?

I'm arguing that if Monster is doing that, and they are malicious in nature, and they ramp up 20 lawsuits a month, it would only take one lawyer about 10 minutes to crush Monster into nothingness.

That lawyers can defend against these is immaterial. "Winning" such a lawsuit can be crippling or fatal to a business. You might think you can just "turn it over to your lawyer" but the other party can force you into long, pointless, and grueling depositions, demand outrageous documentation of all kinds of stuff, secure temporary injunctions against you using your name for anything, and keep your attorney billing you round the clock with phone calls, document requests, and all manner of legal hassles.

I can tell you right now that if Monster is engaged in what you say they are, and you can find valid legal admisable evidence to back that up, they couldn't last 5 minutes past an attempt to demand an injuction. That's what my problem is when this whole line of thought being conducted here....I absolutely know people abuse and misuse the legal system, but If you are in insurance (sounds like you are) you already know the trickiness that people apply to conduct fraudulent claims. And you know not many fruadulent claims make it either. The ones that do get a lot of publicity because of the outrageousness involved.

So back this into Monster...one lawyer working part time using Google, the Fed offices sites, and a little bit of brainwork...could easily drain the Monster corporations income for the last 5 years if Monster launched a civil negligent lawsuit. They couldn't get away with it if the companies in question back themselves up. And in terms of legal fees, if Monster sues and is proved it did so maliciously and without justified cause, they have to pay all of the legal fees if they lose. The guy that sued me for slipping on a cable, ended up paying the enormous legal bills of both ends of the suit for the pleasure of losing. I'm not sure how different this would be for a fruadulent lawsuit over trade/servce marks or copywrites.

I don't know what you pay your lawyer as a retainer but it would cost us a hell of a lot to pay our lawyer a retainer that would include fighting a court case.

My relationship with Gray-Cary in San Diego goes back almost as long as they have been around...my retainer rates are quite favorable to me becuase of the long standing partnership they have with my family and our associated business's. So I guess I do have an advantage over quite a few business's when needing legal. At the same time G-C are quite well connected in the political structure of California. I would venture a guess that if a Monster type company attempted a sketchy lawsuit without merit to *shake me down*...that they would find themselves in a *heap O trouble* and go home with about half their company intact. That's not bragging, that's stating exactly why many people utilize that law firm.

Seriously, Monster has filed hundreds of the malicious and frivolous lawsuits. They are plainly and obviously without merit. Monster plainly and obviously knows they are without merit and works mightily to keep them out of the courts. When a defendant tries to take their case to court on principle, monster pays off THEIR OWN DEFENDANT to keep it out of court. Over and over again. This isn't an isolated mistake or misunderstanding or overzealous protection of a trademark, these are pure and simple shakedown cases.

Look...if you have legal evidence that they are doing this...what is the problem with you? Write every company ever touched by the malfeasance behavior and give them that evidence. Monster would be bankrupt in 6 months attempting to stave off the endless counter suits. I doubt he could pay off enough people to stop the flood. But until you do, until you can legally prove it, you are just barking up the wrong tree about it all. IMO of course.

ORIGINAL: Nate
...Look...if you have legal evidence that they are doing this...

OMG. Dude. Seriously, will you please just CLICK ON THE FREAKING LINK to the US Trademark Office website and find out what you are talking about? Please? As a favor to me?

Talking about this as though the circumstances and intent are still unproven just illustrates how uninformed you are.