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.

yep, you just don't understand what papanate means to the music bidness. you see, in the bidness, you can talk about how courts handle things even though you've never been in one.

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.

Nate,
What are you arguing here?

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

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.

This is how shakedown lawsuits work. If you think they don't or can't happen you are wrong. Insurance companies pay off frivolous or exaggerated claims all the time because it's often cheaper to offer a settlement than to prove your case. I have been involved in legal cases in recent years where we offered a settlement just to be done with it. We could have shut down top executive functions for a week while the officers of the company dealt with the lawyers and spent $200,000 on lost executive salary, legal expenses, and lost productivity to "win" such a case, or we could simply pay off the plaintiff to the tune of $15k or whatever and chalk it up as a cost of doing business. 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.

I can't tell what you're arguing. You seem to be using a smattering of stretched-out legal knowledge to argue that shakedown lawsuits *shouldn't* work, so therefore Monster could not be engaged in them. When the facts are as plain as they are here, that is like taking the position that nothing as heavy as an airplane should be able to fly, therefore the president of France could not be flying back to Paris from his vacation.

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.

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.

Good for you, Tube. Welcome to the revolution. Spread the word, and remember: the walls have ears.

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.

i think you should go read "a civil action" by jonathan harr, keeping in mind that it is much harder to prove malicious intent on the part of a plaintiff in a lawsuit that never goes to court than it is to prove gross negligence on the part of two companies dumping toxic waste into a local community's water basin.

for my part, i'm done with your circular logic, but i have much respect for those who think that particular portion of your brain can be influenced by outside sources.

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.

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

What is it that you do for a living? Is it in music, trademark, servicemark, copywrite or any such practices?