Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Copyright 2007 by Bitflipper

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

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.

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 ).

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

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.]

ORIGINAL: krizrox

http://www.mychildclothing.com/shop/CakeWalk/

Who knows - these guys seem to be immune For now.

well when cake sues them it'll be your fault for pointing it out

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 ).

i should have clarified that what i said was what should be, not what is. =) i'm not a lawyer either, although they make my life in the information security world more annoying than it has to be. when clever lawyers have undue direction over IT strategy, things can go south quickly. they are useful in scaring upper management into good security practices, but like every good thing it can be taken too far...

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.

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.

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"?