ORIGINAL: bitflipper
But did you oxygenate your wire first? Or was that DE-oxygenate, I forget which ridiculous claim justifies Monster's pricing. We'll be looking for the RumleyMusic brand cables at our local GC!

Oxygen-Free Copper

A myth and a hoax. From near the bottom of that page:

Many owners of high-end audio and video equipment value oxygen-free cables. Behind this demand is the belief that oxygen-free copper will have enhanced conductivity or other electrical properties that are significantly advantageous to low frequency (audio) signal transmission. However, conductivity specifications for C11000 ETP and C10200 OF coppers are identical. In practice, nominal conductivity differences between the three grades listed above are less than 1% at room temperature.

So, unless your speaker cables are cooled to near absolute zero, don't expect any audible difference with OFC.

Monster Cable CEO Noel Lee defended these actions by saying "We have an obligation to protect our trademark; otherwise we'd lose it"

He is correct. And whether they win or loose doesn't matter. It's not about winning, it's about protecting their trademark, and it's basically required of them by trademark law.

Semi-true. A trademark owner can't simply ignore infringing uses without risking losing the mark. But that doesn't require the trademark owner to be an a**hole.

E.g., Kodak is a very strong mark, because it's an arbitrary word. Kodak would probably need to go after a small town pie shop called "Kodak Pies" or risk harm to its mark. But there's a difference between an aggressive "stop or we'll sue you to Kingdom Come" approach, versus a "We can't allow you to use our mark, and if you'll agree to stop we'll pay to get you a new sign" approach.

ORIGINAL: aaronk

Monster Cable CEO Noel Lee defended these actions by saying "We have an obligation to protect our trademark; otherwise we'd lose it"

He is correct. And whether they win or loose doesn't matter. It's not about winning, it's about protecting their trademark, and it's basically required of them by trademark law.

Semi-true. A trademark owner can't simply ignore infringing uses without risking losing the mark. But that doesn't require the trademark owner to be an a**hole.

E.g., Kodak is a very strong mark, because it's an arbitrary word. Kodak would probably need to go after a small town pie shop called "Kodak Pies" or risk harm to its mark. But there's a difference between an aggressive "stop or we'll sue you to Kingdom Come" approach, versus a "We can't allow you to use our mark, and if you'll agree to stop we'll pay to get you a new sign" approach.

The point is that a trademark does not give you any kind of exclusive ownership of a word.

Kodak would almost certainly be well within their moral and legal rights to aggressively go after anyone else who was using the word, because it's a made-up word and it would be nigh-impossible to imagine any legitimate use of it other than to refer to the camera/film conglomorate.

But "Delta" for instance is an actual word and therefore it is possible for there to be registered trademarks peacefully co-existing for Delta Airlines, Delta Faucets, and Delta Hotels. "Monster" is not only a real, pre-exisitng word, but an extremely common and ancient one that is in everyday useage for its common meaning. Thousands of companies have legitimate uses for monster that have nothing to do with the cable company. Monster trucks, costume shops, horror movies, special-effects companies, etc all have a perfectly legitimate right to use trademarks that include the word monster, and they also have to deal with the fact that their trademark is not going to be as exclusive as say Kodak or Texaco or Verizon or some such, but they also get the benefit of already having an iconic and descriptive term to use.

There are thousands of trademarks having to do with "monster" that predate the existence of the cable company, and thousands of legitimate uses that have come up since. Monster is suing all of them. This is the equivalent of me starting a restaurant called "Cable", trademarking the name, and then suing monster cable for their use of the word. It's completely bogus and without merit.

Cheers.

This is the equivalent of me starting a restaurant called "Cable", trademarking the name, and then suing monster cable for their use of the word. It's completely bogus and without merit.

But tempting . . .

Which kind of brings me to a pointless pondering.

2 words: Monster Cable. Both common.
The word Monster has been TM to other parties prior to their use in other context.
The word Cable has been TM prior to Monster Cable to other cable interest.

How could Monster even TM this combo without infringing on someone?

And if they are going after people using 1 of these 2 words, which has already been TM'd to others couldn't ABC Cable sue Monster for using the word Cable if their TM pre-dated Monsters?

I don't get the logic or legality of you "can't" use Monster but we "can" use Cable.

ORIGINAL: mwd

Which kind of brings me to a pointless pondering.

2 words: Monster Cable. Both common.
The word Monster has been TM to other parties prior to their use in other context.
The word Cable has been TM prior to Monster Cable to other cable interest.

How could Monster even TM this combo without infringing on someone?

And if they are going after people using 1 of these 2 words, which has already been TM'd to others couldn't ABC Cable sue Monster for using the word Cable if their TM pre-dated Monsters?

I don't get the logic or legality of you "can't" use Monster but we "can" use Cable.

Trademark is not copyright. Trademark is a somewhat murkier world, and there can easily be hundreds or thousands of registered and unregistered trademarks that use similar wording and that co-exist in perpetual prosperity and happiness.

Forget about any laws or anything for a minute, the purpose of a "trade mark" is some kind of mark or word or logo or whatever that identifies you or your business in the marketplace. Before you ever talk to an attorney or a government agency or whatever, if you have a name or a logo for your business, that is a mark you use in trade. You have certain legal protections and moral rights to use it even if you don't register it or put a "TM" after it or whatever (but obviously your protections are stronger if you do).

Let's say you start a diner and call it "Town Diner." Not very imaginative but it works. Even if you don't register it, that's your trademark, and the name you do business under and nothing wrong with it, even though there are probably a thousand other "Town Diners" in the world. And it is a trademark for each of them. As long as there's no confusion, as long as nobody's trying to capitalize on someone else's name, no big deal. Just like Joe's Garage or whatever.

But let's say someone else opened another "town diner" in town, or let's say you are successful and decide to start a chain or franchises and you register the Trademark and expand to other towns that already have a "town diner," which may predate your registered trademark. These are problems, and they are stickier and murkier and less clear-cut than copyright issues. Ideally, you could figure out a way to sort this out somehow with the other party. Maybe one will agree to use a distinctive logo and change their name to "Mary Morton's Original Town Diner" if the other party will pay for the new signage and printed materials or whatever.

Given that neither party was trying to rip the other one off, and both have more or less legitimate claims, people will usually try to come to a semi-amicable solution. If that doesn't work then the courts will have to try and figure out what's fair and settle the matter somehow.

That's an example of a difficult case to decide. A much easier one is when there is bona-fide clear infringement. For instance, someone sets up a "Town diner" designed to look like a part of your chain without your permission. This is clear infringement. Or a competitor uses you name in their own promotional materials, such as "Same recipe as Town Diner!" or "former chef of town diner!" Or someone wants to sabotage your business and sends out coupons with your name that say "buy one rat-booger pizza and get a second one free!" or whatever.

Believe it or not, the law *is* actually designed to follow common-sense principles of fairness and reasonable behavior. It is not designed to be a system of complex traps that arbitrarily ruins lives because someone forgot to say "Mother May I" three times before turning on the lights. Trademark law is not intended as a natural resource to be exploited by lawyers to extract intellectual property from regular workaday businesses.

If you started a company called "monster audio cable" to try and pass off cheap cables under the monster brand then they would have every right to sue you to kingdom come. But if you make horror movies about monsters, that has nothing to do with monster cable. You don't owe them anything and there's no reason that you can't go right along calling your movie "Monster" or whatever.

Cheers.

2 words: Monster Cable. Both common.
The word Monster has been TM to other parties prior to their use in other context.
The word Cable has been TM prior to Monster Cable to other cable interest.

How could Monster even TM this combo without infringing on someone?

And if they are going after people using 1 of these 2 words, which has already been TM'd to others couldn't ABC Cable sue Monster for using the word Cable if their TM pre-dated Monsters?

I don't get the logic or legality of you "can't" use Monster but we "can" use Cable.

"Monster" is a common word, but it's an arbitrary choice of word to describe a cable. So, you can trademark "Monster" as a brand for cable, just like "Apple" computers or "Harp" beer. And a trademark owner can legitimately want to have a broad scope for their mark -- is an "Apple" just a computer, or is it also a phone and a music service, etc.?

In the context of cables, "Cable" is the word describing the product. You can't trademark "Cable" as a brand for cables, but you could have "Cable" brand beer or "Cable" brand shoes or "Cable" brand monster masks.

I invent a cable reel that will roll up 20 stage cables at once.
Can I call it Cable Monster?

Can I write a childrens book about monsters, and call it Monster Fables?

ORIGINAL: Owen
Can I write a childrens book about monsters, and call it Monster Fables?

Sure, but shortly after you syndicate and make a brand of Monster Fable products, you can expect to be slapped with a suit from Monster Cable saying that you're diluting their name. Judging by their track record, they know good and well that it won't stand up in court. But that doesn't matter... they're counting on your fear or lack of muster to call their bluff.