Monster Lawsuit Article in Wall Street Journal

MLZ

Interesting article in today's (4/4/09) Wall Street Journal about the Monster Cable lawsuit against Monster Mini Golf franchisess

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123869022704882969.html

The Scariest Monster of All Sues for Trademark Infringement
Fancy Audio-Cable Outfit Defends Its Brands; A Mini Golf Course Fights Back

I was pleased to see last paragraph: "Monster Cable's Mr. Lee says the company also received at least 200 angry consumer complaints. After speaking with the Vitaglianos, he decided to drop the lawsuit, withdraw his company's opposition to Monster Mini Golf's trademark applications and pay up to $200,000 of their legal expenses."

But I will never buy anything from Monster Cable :eek:

shack

I will never purchase a single piece of their product...and will take every opportunity to bash this company!

**** MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS, INC. AND THE **** NOEL LEE!

This is of course...just my opinion. :rolleyes:

SolidSqual

This makes me so mad. Monster has taken product protection to the level of frivolous. Trademark law is my specialty, and it's a necessity for any company with a valuable name; however, it's malpractice when lawyers sue companies whose products aren't even in remotely the same field or are not blatantly using the mark owners name in a way that detriments its value.

I've been discussing some pro bono work with colleagues of mine to help out small companies that have to deal with these jerks. The problem is that creating a pro bono organization to combat these frivolous suits may actually lead to more frivolous suits. Really, the only solid solution is legislative reform.

timlitton

I hate Monster for their bullying tactics. They should face punitive action for all the frivolous lawsuits.

SolidSqual wrote: »

Trademark law is my specialty

So do you work at Baker & Daniel? I was going to call them last year for some copyright violation stuff. I wouldn't mind kicking some work to a CP member instead.

Nothing to the extent Monster is doing of course...:D

Edit: my apologies for the semi off-topic.

obieone

This can all be fixed by someone opening a "Monster Sub" shop......

On Mulberry st.:rolleyes:

And just wait for the lawsuit:eek:

And the response:p

Hillbilly61

While I agree that Monster Cable is hurting themselves more than protecting themselves, this topic gets real grey real fast. Ever hear of the phrase "mickey mouse" as in the context of "small, puny, cheap, etc?" For example, "This is a mickey mouse operation."

A few years back, Disney sued a local pizza shop named "Mickey Mouse Pizza" as they had named themselves as a play on that term. You go in there, there was no indication of an affiliation with Disney or a rip off to a Disney "look and feel." In fact, it was a hole in the wall "mickey mouse" operation that made a pretty decent pie. The pizza shop caved real fast, cause they didn't have the money to defend themselves, and renamed themselves to Mousetrap Pizza. They got the last laugh by putting a neon sign with a rough outline of Mickey Mouse's head going into a mousetrap on their roof!

lightman1

Did they go after Jesse James and Monster Garage? Bunch of jerkoffs.

shack

Hillbilly61 wrote:

this topic gets real grey real fast. Ever hear of the phrase "mickey mouse" as in the context of "small, puny, cheap, etc?" For example, "This is a mickey mouse operation."

The phrase "mickey mouse" is a direct reference to Disney's creation. The catch phrase is attributed to Kate Balliet who was an avid detractor of Walt Disney due to his possible WWII associations. The phrase, whether used with positive or negative connotations is based on the Disney character.

The use of the phrase became widespread in the military during the Vietnam war...again a direct reference to the Disney creation.

Hillbilly61 wrote:

A few years back, Disney sued a local pizza shop named "Mickey Mouse Pizza" as they had named themselves as a play on that term. You go in there, there was no indication of an affiliation with Disney or a rip off to a Disney "look and feel." In fact, it was a hole in the wall "mickey mouse" operation that made a pretty decent pie. The pizza shop caved real fast, cause they didn't have the money to defend themselves, and renamed themselves to Mousetrap Pizza. They got the last laugh by putting a neon sign with a rough outline of Mickey Mouse's head going into a mousetrap on their roof!

Since the phrase "Mickey Mouse" and all connotations of that phrase originate with the protected Disney Copyright...the pizza shop was indeed in violation of the copyright. The phrase Mickey Mouse did not exist until Disney created the character. The pizza shop would have lost had they fought it. I doubt Disney is losing any sleep over the picture and I’m sure the sign is generic enough that they don’t care. Use of the name DOES get them riled.

Monster on the other hand is trying to protect what they contend is a "legend" copyright phrase...by saying that even though the word monster existed before they copyrighted the term in association with their cables...their use has elevated the term to such a level that when one hears monster it immediately brings them to mind. That argument would never hold in court and is the reason they cave before it gets to far along in the judicial system when challenged. They are indeed bullying and going too far.

MLZ

I love that they went after the Boston Red Sox for the "Green Monster"

MacLeod

^^^

Agreed.

Opening a Mickey Mouse Pizza shop is obviously a violation of a trademark. What Monster is doing would be like Disney suing somebody that opened up Mickey's Pizza claiming that since Mickey Mouse is a Disney trademark the pizza shop cant have Mickey in the title which is of course absurd.

So yeah; **** Monster Cable and all their products!

I think Time Warner Cable should sue Monster Cable for trademark infringement.

lunazul

lightman1 wrote: »

Did they go after Jesse James and Monster Garage? Bunch of jerkoffs.

I believe they did but have no idea on the outcome.

comfortablycurt

Hillbilly61 wrote: »

While I agree that Monster Cable is hurting themselves more than protecting themselves, this topic gets real grey real fast. Ever hear of the phrase "mickey mouse" as in the context of "small, puny, cheap, etc?" For example, "This is a mickey mouse operation."

A few years back, Disney sued a local pizza shop named "Mickey Mouse Pizza" as they had named themselves as a play on that term. You go in there, there was no indication of an affiliation with Disney or a rip off to a Disney "look and feel." In fact, it was a hole in the wall "mickey mouse" operation that made a pretty decent pie. The pizza shop caved real fast, cause they didn't have the money to defend themselves, and renamed themselves to Mousetrap Pizza. They got the last laugh by putting a neon sign with a rough outline of Mickey Mouse's head going into a mousetrap on their roof!

I can understand that to some extents...it's still kind of ridiculous IMO...but a little less so than some of the Monster lawsuits.

Whenever the average person hears "Mickey Mouse", they instantly think of the Disney character...Mickey Mouse is a household name though, everybody knows who he is.

Sure, Monster is the most well known cable company, but they're still a VERY far cry from being a household name. When the average person hears the word "monster", they don't automatically think of Monster Cables. They're more likely to think of the thing that hid in their closet when they were kids, perhaps the movie "Monsters Inc." or even monster.com before they think of Monster Cables.

apphd

Typical corporate and legal attitudes. I particularly liked the comment :

"We have to balance what we do legally to protect our mark with that of public opinion," says Mr. Lee, adding, "We're very sensitive to our reputation."

Obviously they don't have a clue as to what their reputation already is. If they did they would stop with the deceptive advertising and inflated prices.

vonnie123

Monster Cable's bullying tactics have drawn the ire of many potential customers. Personally, I have sold or given away all of my Monster Products over the last several years. I will not buy Monster Products in the future. I like Blue Jeans Cable's response to the clown lawyers at monster.

MLZ

It is simple really: Monster Cable's management, in defining their business model, decided they could earn a higher return on their investment by putting money and resources into their legal department (and, I think, marketing), than by investing in research and development.

lightman1

Still a big pile of dicks! I cast a pox upon them!

Hillbilly61

comfortablycurt wrote: »

I can understand that to some extents...it's still kind of ridiculous IMO...but a little less so than some of the Monster lawsuits.

Whenever the average person hears "Mickey Mouse", they instantly think of the Disney character...Mickey Mouse is a household name though, everybody knows who he is.

Sure, Monster is the most well known cable company, but they're still a VERY far cry from being a household name. When the average person hears the word "monster", they don't automatically think of Monster Cables. They're more likely to think of the thing that hid in their closet when they were kids, perhaps the movie "Monsters Inc." or even monster.com before they think of Monster Cables.

Part of the point being made, and I believe missed, is that once a trademarked item becomes a phrase, the company loses some control over its use. How many here call that powered flavored stuff you mix hot water with and then cool into a rubber like mass "geliten" instead of generically referring to it as "jello"?

There was a landmark copyright case many years ago when the makers of Jello went after folks generically using the term. The courts were were not particularly kind to the makers of Jello. Basically, it was decided that the makers of Jello lost control of the term "jello," as it became a common term ... much like Monster never having control of their term. They did cut the makers some slack, bascially saying alternative makers of the geliten could not use the term "jello" when describing their product, since it was the same type of product that competes with a product's name. As a result, you will almost always hear the phrase "Jello brand geliten" when the makers of Jello are advertising their product.

Concerning Mousetrap Pizza, it has been used as a lesson in a local law school, where "might makes right" - meaning that you can sometimes win by outspending your opponent's ability to counter spend, even if there is a pretty good chance you will lose if it goes to court. Maybe that is what Monster Cable thought they could do by going after an unrelated small business, but staying clear (as far as I know) outfits like Monster.com?

shack

Hillbilly61 wrote:

Concerning Mousetrap Pizza, it has been used as a lesson in a local law school, where "might makes right" - meaning that you can sometimes win by outspending your opponent's ability to counter spend, even if there is a pretty good chance you will lose if it goes to court. Maybe that is what Monster Cable thought they could do by going after an unrelated small business, but staying clear (as far as I know) outfits like Monster.com?

I would bet the farm that the pizza joint would lose the trademark suit with Disney, regardless of how much money either side had to spend. Mickey Mouse has not reached the point of being generic and while they may not be able to prevent it from being used as a descriptive phrase...one will never be able to use it in a business endeavor. And the law school could have come up with a much better example, because if they are trying to say that the only reason Disney won was because of the money...the courts have held differently in cases that have gone to full trial.

BlueFox

MLZ wrote: »

It is simple really: Monster Cable's management, in defining their business model, decided they could earn a higher return on their investment by putting money and resources into their legal department (and, I think, marketing), than by investing in research and development.

Yes. Short, sweet, and to the point.

Danny Tse

Monster Cable sues Monster Transmission

jinjuku

Danny Tse wrote: »

Monster Cable sues Monster Transmission

I was about to post that.

Check out the AH'ers massive thread(s) on this. I do believe that AH is a good bit responsible for the push back against MC.

Check out an earlier thread about Blue Jeans Cable being threatened by MC. Kurt Denke's response is taking on legendary status.

MLZ

BlueFox wrote: »

Yes. Short, sweet, and to the point.

I wonder if by Monster not investing in R&D is a tacit admission from the guys who helped start the "high-end" cable business that any improvements will not be sonically noticeable

digitalvideo

Have they gone after Monster Energy Drink yet?

zingo

Not that I know of, but that's a bigger dog than they have been going after in the past. They LOVE picking off the mom and pop places. :mad: