synthfreek Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 This is insane what these dorks are doing. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html They are suing Monster Garage, Sesame Street, Walt Disney(Monsters Inc.), Bally Gaming, The Chicago Bears, Snow Monsters(a video company that targets children skiers) & monstervintage.com(an online Grateful Dead specialty seller). This is just absurd and even though I have no Monster products I encourage you all to boycott these money-grubbing losers. "Monster Cable is simply doing what many "premium" brand companies do: protecting a hard-earned image." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinlr Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 I knew it was bound to happen sooner or later. Personally, I have been disturbed over the increasing trademarking of the English language. Last time I checked the English language was not 'owned' by anyone. The folks who issue trademarks are the ones at fault here. They should never have allowed the trademarking of common use words and phrases to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan krajewski Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 I agree 100 percent. In fact, I will not purchase that brand even if it is the best cable on the market. Actually, the argument still rages on over cable. Anyway, to leave this madness to the courts of law has led us to our current state of insanity. Ralph Nader once lamented (and I am no supporter of his by any means) if only Americans realized the power they have in their wallets. I sincerely believe the age of the boycott should begin in earnest. When outrageous insanity, driven by greed, rears its oh so ugly head, America can thwart this sickness very simply with the boycott. A couple of weeks to a month of serious boycotting will bring any company, no matter how large, to mend their "Orwellian" ways. I know that a lawyer can make the case for these arguments and it a gray area but in the case described in this thread, it reminds me of child pornagraphy. You can argue the 1st amendment merits but everyone (but the very sick) knows its wrong. And so is this. We can and must make a difference. In my humble opinion "The pen is mightier than the sword but the wallet beats them both". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synthfreek Posted January 8, 2005 Author Share Posted January 8, 2005 I'm sure some of you guys have heard about those "Letters From A Nut" books. Here's an appropriate excerpt from one. From "More Letters from a Nut" by Ted L. Nancy: Administration The Coca Cola Company 1 Coca Cola Plaza, NW Atlanta, GA 30313 Dear Coca Cola, I have a beverage called Kiet Doke. Will it interfere with your beverage -- Diet Coke. The taste is NOT SIMILAR at all!! (Mine tastes like Pepsi). I will sell my Kiet Doke to mostly construction workers who love it. One guy said, "This sure DOESN'T taste like Coca Cola." Let me know so I can continue to sell my soda. Thanks. By the way do you use caramel in your soda? Just checking. Thanks. Sincerely, Ted L. Nancy -------------------------------------------------- Mr. Ted L. Nancy 560 No. Moorpark Road #236 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 RE: Kiet Doke (Our Reference Number 145342) Dear Mr. Nancy: Thank you for your letter of October 25, 1996 inquiring whether you may continue using the trademark KIET DOKE in association with a beverage. As the owner of a federal registration for the famous trademark "diet Coke", we cannot consent to your use of KIET DOKE in association with a beverage. We believe KIET DOKE is confusingly similar to our trademark "diet Coke", and are concerned that an appreciable number of consumers will believe that The Coca-Cola Company endorses your product. As a result, we must insist that you immediately take action to discontinue the use of KIET DOKE. If you are willing to immediately cease and desist using KIET DOKE, and agree not to use any product name or trademarks of The Coca-Cola Company in association with beverages in the future, please sign the spaces provided and return this letter to me. If you would like to discuss this, I may be reached at the numbers below. If we have not received this signed agreement withing fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter, we will assume you do not agree to these terms. Sincerely, Nancy V. Stephens Trademark Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------- MS. NANCY V. STEPHENS COCA COLA PO Drawer 1734 Atlanta, GA 30301 Dear Ms. Nancy V. Stephens, I have decided that I will NOT sell my KIET DOKE beverage any more. The product is discontinued. I am taking my $700.00 out of the bank and my 11 cans of Kiet Doke that are left and bringing them home. (They are in my room now). I now realize it was a poorly thought out idea. It was stupid. I mean, if you went to 7-11 and saw in the cooler Dr. Pepper, Orange Crush, Wink, and Kiet Doke, would you choose the Kiet Doke? I don't think so. The idea was bad. Who was I to think that someone would choose Kiet Doke? I am embarrassed over what I now consider to be a terrible idea. So let this letter stand as my admission that I have ceased and desisted. There will be no more Kiet Doke on the market. I am sorry I bothered you. I am sorry I wasted your time. And please look for my new beverage -- PIET DEPSI. With the familiar slogan: "It Tastes Nothing Like Coke!" (Will be in coolers soon.) Piet Depsi is a thirst quenching drink which, I believe, does not taste like your drink. Enjoy it! Also, what about caramel in your soda? Are you using a lot if it? Thanks. Respectfully, Ted L. Nancy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Tognotti (Monster Cable attorney) said Monster Cable is simply doing what many "premium" brand companies do: protecting a hard-earned image. "We have spent millions of dollars and countless hours trying to build a quality premium brand in the marketplace" Notice the keyword. Premium "brand". He makes no mention of premium quality "product". Looks like I'll have to rip out all the Monster Cable in my system. Its about time for a change anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 I have to laugh thinking that someone might confuse the Sesame Street's caca --ahem... I mean cookie monster... with monster cable. But then again.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I was never sold on their products anyway but to say that A movie title or a used clothing store would be confused with their product is just way over the top. I think I will start selling my own version of audio cables. I will call them DISCOUNT cables. I will trademark the word DISCOUNT then sue anyone who has the balls to use this word in anyway for any reason. I should make millions off the lawsuits and a few bucks on the cables! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picky Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I think Belkin should sue Monster for using the word 'Cable'! What incredible, elitist jack-asses they are! Too many dollars and not enough sense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch RF7 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Actually Ive been working on my own brand of cable for a bit, I am calling it Konster Mable brand, it will perform nothing like Monster Cable, in fact 2 out 3 listeners said that "This sounds nothing like Monster cable" I will be selling it strictly to the budget concious consumer, they will be so delighted at the performance of this high end cable. Look for it in local botiques, the slogan will be "This cable sounds nothing like Monster Cable" BTW, I wonder if Monster Cable use's 99.9% OFC stranded or solid core? Hmmmm........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 The same thing happened with Barney suits. There was a company making them for Halloween. That Company was sued and had to disclose their sales list. All buyers received letters to cease and desist using the Costumes. Then they wanted them returned. I copyright my Crime Prevention articles or books. I have been published in at least three Countries. I cannot Copyright, trade mark or registered mark the words Crime Prevention. As I have noted, specific non-everyday use words like Kodak, Xerox I can understand. But for little kids nowwill they be sued for having a monster in their closet or under their bed? Besides a boycott and a recommendation to boycott their products, I think they may have their hands full when going up against the Monster Truck promoters. If the product is a type of cable or Surge Protection plus - the same area, it almost can be understandable. But, what they are trying to do is beyond anything but greed. dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Some of you guys must never read on the General Questions forum!!! There have been at least 3 threads down there for about a week on this very same topic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpm Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Who gives a ****? I got bigger fish to fry, and worrying about frivolous lawsuits bores me. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 ---------------- On 1/10/2005 12:54:37 PM minn_male42 wrote: Some of you guys must never read on the General Questions forum!!! There have been at least 3 threads down there for about a week on this very same topic! ---------------- Hi Russ: Some either don't go to the posted today or other sections but 2 channel, or HT. I responded to the other in about the same way. JPM: Yes they will be frivolous lawsuits. But they may put some companies out of business in the cost of defending them or it does eventually add to what we pay. So I understand your feelings. I'm looking at it from the perspective of along with other things in my careers, a Process Server - Subpoenas, Summonses, Complaints, Orders to Cease and Desist, etc.. dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Maybe this company souuld sue MC for the use of the word "Cable": "General Cable / Carol Brand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable is a leader in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for the communications, energy and electrical markets. General Cable Corporation was originally incorporated in New Jersey in 1927. At that time it brought together the plant facilities and manufacturing experience of several older companies founded in the 1800s, including Phillips Wire and Safety Cable Company and Standard Underground Cable founded by George Westinghouse." It looks like they have had rights to "Cable" since before MC was hatched. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 ---------------- On 1/10/2005 1:03:58 PM jpm wrote: Who gives a ****? I got bigger fish to fry, and worrying about frivolous lawsuits bores me. Carry on. ---------------- there is a bigger point behind this, it is to show why you shouldn't buy monster in the first place etc, and demenstrate b uisness practices that most of us disagree with etc.... you should read the threads in the general questions about monster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerwoodKhorns Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The rationale behind the theory is dilution of the trade name (a very valuable commodity). For example, the name very valuable mark "Xerox" is diluted as it has become a generic term for the act of copying a document. This is a valid concern and corporations will spend big money to protect their mark. The other concern is deceptional labeling of a product that will harm a mark by consumers associating an inferior product with the mark (example, Rolex makes lousy watches cuz this here Rollecks that I bought broke after two days...) The problem is that attorneys are trained to contort scenarios to justify their position (typically in litigation). This contortion has also spilled over into other areas and we now have Monster Cable attempting to assert rights over a common word (why aren't they going after Monster.com?) and giving all attorneys a bad name. Before anyone blasts me, I do not agree with what is being attempted here. Monster is too common of a word (unlike Piet Depsi). Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 apparently they did go after monster.com. There's a list of targets in one of those threads in General. That point above is very well taken. Technically they haven't sued the kids snow video maker yet, they just presented a demand letter. They want an upfront "license fee" and a percentage of his gross profits. When this happens the implied next step is "if you don't pay up I'll sue you." If this guy isn't claiming to own the word monster in any commercial context then why would he be demanding people pay him for the privilege of using it? That fluff article pointed to is disingenuous at best. I wonder if he advertises in that publication/web site? I'm in for the boycott. I'll avoid their products completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bytor Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Hello, I understand companies wanting to protect their good, or at least hard earned, name, but this is ridiculous. It's like trying to copywrite "thin and crispy" (pizza hut) or "fair and balanced" (the dreaded Fox News.) Diet Pepsi and Kleenex are not words that regularly appear in the language. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The thing is, you need to spend lots of money to defend yourself from these creeps or pay them to go away. Either way, you loose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Amazing. Is McDonald's a 500lb gorilla or what. I guess they think they have to challenge EVERYTHING or they don't have the justification to challenge real threats. Mark, hope you are able to stay clear of litigious harassment from Juicy Fruit gum co. BTW, I guess that shoots down my idea of selling you on building some inexpensive tripath integrateds which would have been sold as McPeach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.