Have you heard about these Monster Cable lawsuits?

[dodger]

----------------

On 1/11/2005 1:59:45 AM tigerwoodKhorns wrote:

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

----------------

Chris:

If you are an Attorney, you understand my posts. The rest of this is generalization, not against you.

As an addition, what will we call Frankenstein's Monster?

IF they had properly applied when they started, it could almost be understandable in enforcing.

But at this point, it is a poor business practice, almost as if they had waited to get large and then go after anyone they please.

Perhaps Radio Shack and Tripp-Lite should go after them for using protection after surge surpression.

"Monster" is a word with several meanings. It is the public domain for use by the average citizen in describing large, a frightening being et. al..

If they are successful, perhaps Klipsch should Register Speaker.

Attorneys have their needed place. Some should have the courage to speak up to their clients, or all that are being subjected to litigation should note when the name was put into use and then counter-sue.

Besides a boycott, there is the ability for each of us to let our elected officials know how we feel. A letter writing to Op-Eds in our newspapers could begin.

Things like this start as stealth. Another company should begin proceedings to stop, severed from the initial papers filed by Monster Cable against them.. There are enough other examples and the wording of the statement by the Chairman leaves enough out.

In the end, it will cost us as Consumers. Companies will go more to the tack of strategic Litigation, filing motions to tie up rightful Complaints and intimidating people for bringing a just and proper suit against a company for fear of being papered to bankruptcy.

dodger

[dodger]

As another separate but worthy of its own post.

I believe Taylor Wine was bought by Coca-Cola.

Walter Taylor, a member of the family had been producing his own line. A small Vintner.

The wine was produced under Walter Taylor brand with his likeness on the label.

Either Taylor or Coca-Cola sued and prevented him from using any reference to the word Taylor.

His own name. Plus he was willing to state no affiliation. He lost.

I have an older pair of Monster Cables. There is no R in a circle, no TM, no C for that fact. If it is claimed, one of those must appear after the name.

So in the world, picture Sony going after anyone using the word music. Extreme, but just receiving a letter from the team of Lawyers would be enough to cause changes because companies could not afford to go to court to prove the obvious and prevail with Sony (only a fictitious example) paying legal fees.

And some wonder why I make sure to note that I am not an Attorney, not giving legal Advice and why I note fictitious example.

dodger

[jpm]

In the end, it won't matter. On one hand we have 500 people that are interested enough to boycott. On the other hand you have a million gumbies that will buy monster wire for their new $350 Walmart HT system. They've heard nothing of this debacle, and couldn't/wouldn't form an opinion if offered the chance. They're only interested in the wire.

This reminds me of gun litigation. Cities suing gun manufacturers. That ended up going nowhere too.

[tigerwoodKhorns]

I agree. I would hope that a court would find that the word "Monster" is a generic term and cannot warrant a mark. The real problem is that attorneys can pursue these types of actions without fear of sanctions for lack of a good faith cause of action.

[psg]

----------------

On 1/11/2005 1:59:45 AM tigerwoodKhorns wrote:

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.

Chris

----------------

I agree with the rest of your post, but not the above. Cornering the name in your market is a good thing, such as "to xerox = to photocopy", "to google = to search on the web", klennex. Those are all good for the owner of the mark.

[MrMcGoo]

PSG,

If a trade mark becomes a common part of the English language, you no longer have exclusive use of the mark. For example, Thermos lost their mark that way.

This is part of the reason that Monster defends its mark so agressively. IMO they have gone too far, and it's going to cost them sales. It could not happen to a nicer bunch of folks.

Bill

[lipinski]

The issues against monster due not lie solely on their litigious nature. Other business practices warrant complaint by a reasonable person.

I'm a little tired of every time that I walk into an electronics store that I have too hear somebody remind me that after I must be sure an supplement my purchase with some really great wire. I'm not naive enough to think that he's really serious. He's been coached to say that because he knows he'll make double or triple the profit margin on that part of the sale. These salesman could just keep that kinda of nonsense where the sun doesn't shine.

[v3spitfire]

Can you see McIntosh sueing growers of McIntosh Apples or McIntosh Computer? If its in a completely different industry, it should be irrelevant.

Infinity Speakers vs Infiniti cars.

Lincoln National vs Lincoln Printing vs Lincoln Car vs Lincoln Benefit vs Lincoln.....

All that's needed is common sense. In the above example, I'm sure that if a speaker manufacturer decided to use the name "Infiniti" with the "i", Infinity would have a legitimate claim. They know a car company doesn't infringe on their name.

I hope a company who uses Monster in their name and was around before Monster Cable turns the table on these f***s.

[skonopa]

----------------

On 1/11/2005 2:04:36 PM MrMcGoo wrote:

If a trade mark becomes a common part of the English language, you no longer have exclusive use of the mark. For example, Thermos lost their mark that way.

This is part of the reason that Monster defends its mark so agressively. IMO they have gone too far, and it's going to cost them sales. It could not happen to a nicer bunch of folks.

----------------

The thing here is that the word "Monster" is already a common term, long before "Monster Cable" has been around. It seems that Monster Cable now wants to lay claim to all uses of the word "Monster" and make any other outfit that uses that term in thier name to "pay-up or else", regardless if that other business in in electronics or not.

Also, who goes around and says "I gotta hook up my Monster Cable" when refering to cabling in general? People just simply say, "cable" or "wires" or "cords".

[MrMcGoo]

It is clear the Monster Cable does not own the word monster. They do need to defend their mark in cable and audio. The other lawsuits lack any merit whatsoever.

I like the boycott. They will have to change their practices and their image. Magnolia recently dropped Monster and sell only AudioQuest (more expensive with bigger margins.)

Bill

[maxg]

I dont think this is unique to Monster. Didnt Apple - the Beetles production company sue Apple the computer maker a few years back on the very same basis?

If Apple is a registered trademark then Monster is a foregone conclusion.

I am now going to open a new cable company in one of those far east countries that doesnt seem to give a rats a$$ for trademarks:

The monstrous Cable company, or the monstah cable company or some such.

If they are going to behave like an empire then I plan to behave like a Goth!

(Hmmm Note : monstrous without capitalization and as an adjective would probably be very hard to sure against anyway - The realy monstrous cable company would be even harder.)

[Steve_L]

----------------

On 1/8/2005 11:45:23 AM artto wrote:

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.

----------------

This is actually TRUE, I was in Best Buy the other day and a salesman there told me. IT turns out that the electrons in the cable, especially the ones that run around the external edges of the cable lose their "Active sense and respond" capability gradually over time. Even though Monster has added numerous additional electrons to the valence shell they are quite certain that you will hear the difference if you replace those old dusty worn out Monster Cables with new more expensive Monster cables every 30 days or so. This is especially true if you play music with numerous harmonics of high frequency on a regular basis.

All of you should be replacing all cables reglarly to achieve the highest fidelity possible. Money back guarantee if you can fit all the cables into that plastic packaging and make them look perfect before returning.

[synthfreek]

The Beatles/Apple story goes something like this. In 1980 or so the Beatles/Apple allowed Mac/Apple to use the name as long as they didn't venture into anything related to music. In the late 80s Macs started being used in many recording studios so they were sued by Beatles/Apple. They came to some sort of aggreement and everything was good. Well have you heard of this iTunes and iPod thing? That was enough for the Beatles/Apple to once again sue just a year or so ago I think. I don't know what's going on with this now. I mean Apple bought Logic Audio last year which is a professional audio editing/sequencing program so they are definitely "in" the music business in more ways than one.

[BEC]

bump

[Guest " "]

Must explain why this stuff is dirt cheap right now, cheaper than lamp cord in many cases.

Think of it as designer lamp cord, at lamp cord prices.

[Duke Spinner]

Screw them a$$es at Monster Cabble ..

it's been many months since I heard from Dodger .( win ) ..

Dude ... where are ya ... ??

were almost nieghbors ..[]

Email, call .. what ..ever

[jpm]

No Monster cable in my casa. Oops! My 05 LaScalas are wired with Monster from the factory.

[Tom Mobley]

Yeah, Monster is right in there with Sony and their rootkit. You won't see any of either in my house.

Funny: After the rootkit fiasco Sony was running a promotion where they would give you a $100 credit to your acct if you opened up a new Sony Visa and made a purchase. Smells like fun, I signed up, made the required initial purchase for $10. It was a SRV CD. 60 days later the credit shows up in my acct. I bought two tanks of gas and cut up the card. Thanks Sony.

Then I found it could be done more than once, read the fine print, sure enough, nothing about one per household or any other limitation. Signed up again. the new card just showed up in the mail, I'll buy something cheap with it, see if the $100 credit shows up in that account too. reportedly, it works.

see http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html for a refresher on Sony's cruddy practices.

[synthfreek]

bump

[EdgarFigaro]

No need to make fun of Best Buy and their employees. Nowhere in the training does it tell you that cables need to be replaced every month or so. He was either trained by an idiot, spun his own pitch to raise numbers and profit, or told by a superior that the numbers for home theatre are not good and to sell more accessories. I work for a big name electronics retailer. I have worked for two different ones. No need to spell the name out. There are knowledgeable associates and then there are ones who aren't. If he was earnest, then you should have told him to research the fundamentals of analog and digital cables, not mock him in an online forum. He was just probably an *** would doesn't really care about his position or upholding the company's name.

As for the quality for Monster, no need to knock it. It is good cable. Say what you want about them, but they're the Sony of the cable industry, The lawsuit is totally ***, but no need to mock a decent company. People say that their marketing is *** and that a $10 HDMI is as good as the Monster $100 one. Well every cable company makes several styles of cables and they use dumb marketing and buzz words to sell the more expensive brand. Just don't see why everyone dogs them.