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

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.

That is what Monster's position is. That's why they get the rulings in their favor most of the time. They have agressively branded themselves from day one....most business's, webpages etc...haven't thought of it, didn't act soon enough, and often they don't even have business licenses to operate under the name they are trying to protect.

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.

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.

Apple is an intersting one to me. For in the real world...I've never confused Beatles Apple with Apple computers, nor would I ever I don't think. Even when they started iTunes (obstensively a record company according to the Beatles) I have never made the connection nor thought the Beatles were involved.

Monster Cable is trying to be retroactive and grandfather themselves in. If you say Monster you mean Monster Cable.

Monster cable is working a niche market with a lot of success. But never in my life would I ever confuse Monster cables with any other company...excepting when that company is in the Audio Market. That does add a huge element of brand confusion. Becuase of the way audio companies work, and how everyone buys everyone out at the drop of a bankruptcy, 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 one only has to look at the Disney brand to see why people protect brands so dearly. They have morphed to mean a lot of things since the inception of Steamboat Willie. Disney means family to many many people. In 40 years, you never know where Monster may be...so the protection could be justified. Monster might morph themselves into meaning all audio/video Connections...not just cable, but anything that links up pieces of gear, software, stereos, networks.. etc...Protection methods now may seem radical until you take that into account. Maybe he's forward thinking like that, and has a solid vision.

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.

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?

I am reminded of the time NBC decided to change their logo. This was many years ago. They paid big bucks for a top-tier graphic designer to come up with a new logo, and it was basically the letter "N". In red.

As if it weren't embarrassing enough to NBC for paying so much for the letter "N", they were subsequently sued by the University of Nebraska, who had already designed THEIR logo to be the letter "N". In Red, of course. (They hadn't paid millions for it, though. A graphic arts student had designed it)

So NBC found themselves in the position of having to pay the university for the right to use the letter "N". They did just that, but abandoned the red "N" shortly after. Maybe somebody observed that they already owned the image of a peacock, a logo that had served for many decades and already was firmly and widely associated with NBC.

This may bolster Nate's assertions above, or maybe just proves the system is badly bent when you can take a letter of the alphabet out of circulation.

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: Nate ~ ...that usurps all other claims to that name from the point of which the copywrite is officially filed.

Getting stuff jumbled together. First a copyright is just that literally... the right to copy an original creation. Has nothing to do with brand names or service marks.

You would be talking about a Trademark if you are talking about an image or Servicemark if you're talking about a service.

Then you would be assuming that a name is only protected if it is registered which isn't the case. You can easily have an unregistered Trademark.

But if I was the old Nates Audio I would be a pretty good business man having survived 35 years before you. So I would let you make a few million as the new Nates Audio, then I would sue you for trademark infringement and sell you the name for a few million.

There are way too many other legal venues that bind a name other than trademark, patent or copyright venues. Including filings for Incorporations, Taxes, and other legal documents that can prove prior claim.

Ironically it may be Monster who finds themselves at the wrong end of a lawsuit for wrongful or groundless threats of infringement. Many of their targets are not engaged in a competitive or potentially confusing business.

Which is what allows Delta Airlines, Delta Hotels and Delta Faucets to all peacefully co-exist.

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.

Monster Cable must be New York fans.

Man, those guys are STILL sore at us.

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.

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

Here's another: they're suing Boudreax’s Country Kitchen for their slogan “Home of the monster shrimp”

Somebody suggested an alternate name for the company: Mobster Cable. I like that, think I'll put it in my sig...