I had heard somewhere that the Rolling Stones managed to copyright just the starting riff of "Satisfaction", the case being that those three notes played that way could pertain to nothing other than that song. (Naturally, if true, that would be in addition to the copyright on the entire song.) I don't know if it's true, but it would be interesting to verify (though slightly OT since it deals with a copyright and not a TM).

The song is copywritten. The riff is not. If Micky and Keefy decided to sing that riff...like a melody...they could copywrite that, and thus protect those notes under law. If some one else played it on an instrument, then the melody would hold in court, and the perp would owe them royalties.

The reality is, like a bunch of guitar riffs from the golden era...like Satisfaction, Smoke on the Water etc...the branding of the tune with the band with the song is so indelible as to good as a copywrite. Only an idiot would attempt it in a marketing campagne.

They register the quote and the ad campaign as a trademark,

In this scenario CK couldn't register the quote. They can request a service mark on the Perfume. But the advert, the campagne and such stuff are not able to be trademarked or otherwise protected. The Perfume in the advert is tradmarked, and the usage of it would have a service mark...which for all in this case would be a deterrent to other companies attempting to appropriate or otherwise clone the advert.

Excatly how "infringement* is established is a *little* gray, but it basically comes down to whether you are creating confusion in the marketplace or using the tagline in such a way that people will think your product is somehow affiliated with the Calvin Klein one.

I think you are confusing law here. Toys R Us has proven infrigement on their service mark a 100 times over. All one has to do is reverse the R in a phrase and they can beat you senseless in court...and they have numerous times.

Apple and the Beatles Apple have settled round 30 of that Service Mark infringment. Over the years Apple Computers has paid the Beatles Apple millions for infringment...until last time. Surprisingly to me, Magritte who painted the original Apple that inspired McCartney's Apple, has not said one thing in court or in public about the appropriation of his works.

Monster has basically been doing an even more egregious version of this by trying to effectively assert complete ownership of the word "Monster."

The company isn't stupid. They have no designs to sue Monster Truck Rallies and other non related events or products. They do sue and attempt to block the usage of their Service Mark Monster as it relates to Musical or Technical pursuits. I agree with them on this. People like to get all huffy about it them being so agressive. I don't. They have to protect that mark in order to keep their brand as identified in the market place as it is these days.

IOW's how many people attempt to take the name *RCA* each year? No very many...and none successfully for the last 50 years. Nor can they appropriate that little deaf doggie listening to the gramophone record player....even though it's archaic and not used in campagne's by RCA anymore they are quite aggressively protecting the service mark. it's part of the reason why we saw a guy sitting in a chair for the Memorex adverts....Memorex attempted to use a look a like dog and cassette deck image...they got pounded in court by RCA lawyers....Yet no one seems to have a problem with that or RCA's protecting of their marks.

Yet Monster does the same thing, and many people get all incensed.

ORIGINAL: yep
Interestingly, it is possible to register trademarks for certain sounds (for instance Harley Davidson has trademarked their exhaust sound, i think). How and if those will hold up in court and under what circumstances is a whole nother matter. I think at least part of the Harley-Davidson thing was a publicity stunt, like insuring a movie star's legs for a million dollars or whatever.

Thanks for clarifying, yep. I get the impression that you've had to deal with this sort of thing for real. Now that you say this, I wonder if I just remembered wrong, and they had actually gotten a trademark on that riff?

The application of the laws regarding this stuff is generally a lot more sensible and less esoteric than it's made out to be. If you rip something off you are generally liable and if you don't rip something off then you are usually in the clear unless a really extraordinary coincidence has occurred. It is ultimately up to a human judge or jury to evaluate the circumstances and the material and to decide if the copyright has been violated or trademark infringed, and most of the time those evaluations are ultimately commonsense and fairly straightforward decisions.

I think that there will always be matters and material that can't be given justice in language. In those cases, thank goodness that we still have the option to obtain decisions rendered by humans... hopefully rational ones (the decisions and the humans making them).

This reminds me of a quote that I know is true: A question arose in a certain case as to how to define pornography in legal language. (I know, you can quote Webster, but we're talking about language that the lawyers for two parties in a case can agree on.) The judge overseeing the case resolved it by saying, "I can't describe it for you in terms, but I know it when I see it."

ORIGINAL: Nate
IOW's how many people attempt to take the name *RCA* each year? No very many...and none successfully for the last 50 years. Nor can they appropriate that little deaf doggie listening to the gramophone record player....even though it's archaic and not used in campagne's by RCA anymore they are quite aggressively protecting the service mark. it's part of the reason why we saw a guy sitting in a chair for the Memorex adverts....Memorex attempted to use a look a like dog and cassette deck image...they got pounded in court by RCA lawyers....Yet no one seems to have a problem with that or RCA's protecting of their marks.

Yet Monster does the same thing, and many people get all incensed.

It's not the same thing. In this case, RCA and Memorex are selling products and operating in the same general domain. Monster, OTOH, is shaking down mom & pop shops with absurd claims of domain infringement.

Not to mention that they are modern manifestations of snake oil salesmen. That's another topic, but nevertheless makes their actions all the more evil.

ORIGINAL: yep

Monster is suing, among hundreds of others:

Fenway Park's Green Monster

Wow, that big foam wall must really be infringing on their business, eh? Leave Wally alone, already.


I'm pretty sure that with trademarks, even once you've registered a trademark effectively it still won't take priority over someone who has previously sold goods in the same market under the same name. I know it works this way with band name trademarks. Therefore, couldn't someone show prior use and turn the tables to force Monster Cables from using the name Monster in their own market?

It's not the same thing. In this case, RCA and Memorex are selling products and operating in the same general domain. Monster, OTOH, is shaking down mom & pop shops with absurd claims of domain infringement.

It's called brand management. RCA doesn't have the same issues becuase Mom and Pops know they have a popcicles chance in hell of winning...however with Monster they think they can beat them. Most of the time they are wrong.

Not to mention that they are modern manifestations of snake oil salesmen. That's another topic, but nevertheless makes their actions all the more evil.

No it doesn't. It's percieved value being marketed to nth degree. Monster is a voluntary purchase last I checked. Much of there sales are based on peoples comfort at buying something they trust. And within the retail music market, trusting a product sells a gazillion more than anything else does...including sound.

So unless you are one of those loony tuners who go into Nordstrom and scream at the clerks for selling shirts at $95 that cost $1.50 to make, ship, and market, then I think you are being purposely obtuse about monster and want to know why.

ORIGINAL: Nate ~ It's called 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).

If Monster Cable has a cute little Monster or some logo they designed to represent their business I support their right to protect that logo or image as part of their own image.

If they call themselves Monster Cable, Monster Music Products, Monster Pro Audio I will also support their right to protect those identities.

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.

Apple vs Apple is a totally different scenario. One they have been trying to sort out for decades. Apple vs Apple pre-dates the internet, domain names and originally was not an issue because these were totally non-competitive, non-related businesses. Computers had absolutely nothing to do with record companies.

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.

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

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.

There was a lot of erroneous information in this post but this is by far the most egregious and the only one that is really relevant to the OP:

ORIGINAL: Nate
...The company isn't stupid. They have no designs to sue Monster Truck Rallies and other non related events or products. They do sue and attempt to block the usage of their Service Mark Monster as it relates to Musical or Technical pursuits...

Try reading what everyone else is actually talking about before announcing what's really going on. If you click the link in my sig (or the one that started the thread) you visit the US the trademark office website and see EXACTLY which companies Monster is suing, and it includes scores of monster truck rallies (yes, specifically), halloween shops, scooby-doo cartoons, special-effects companies, horror movies, and so on.

The facts have been provided for your convenience. Everyone else here is discussing them.

Cheers.

I still don't understand why they would sue Wally the Green Monster. I practiced right behind the Green Monster for years, and in that whole time he was the only one we could depend on to show up for EVERY rehearsal.

What threat could a great Boston/Baseball institution possibly have for a music/clothing/cable enterprise?

ORIGINAL: Nate

It's not the same thing. In this case, RCA and Memorex are selling products and operating in the same general domain. Monster, OTOH, is shaking down mom & pop shops with absurd claims of domain infringement.

It's called brand management. RCA doesn't have the same issues becuase Mom and Pops know they have a popcicles chance in hell of winning...however with Monster they think they can beat them. Most of the time they are wrong.

Not to mention that they are modern manifestations of snake oil salesmen. That's another topic, but nevertheless makes their actions all the more evil.

No it doesn't. It's percieved value being marketed to nth degree. Monster is a voluntary purchase last I checked. Much of there sales are based on peoples comfort at buying something they trust. And within the retail music market, trusting a product sells a gazillion more than anything else does...including sound.

So unless you are one of those loony tuners who go into Nordstrom and scream at the clerks for selling shirts at $95 that cost $1.50 to make, ship, and market, then I think you are being purposely obtuse about monster and want to know why.

Respectfully disagree. Reasons have already been discussed in this thread many times. I'll just leave it at that.