KVR Audio

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:42 pm

farlukar wrote:Monster shrimp?

Looking that over, it would seem to me that it would be par for the course to file a claim for the right to oppose a trademark filing.

If you didn't get in during the window, and it turns out that who ever came along really was infringing on your trademark, then you're only recourse would be costly lawsuits. These kinds of procedures are in the system to keep things running smoothly and really just acknowledge a right to review an application prior to legal complication.

The Disney deal for instance, who knows what happened there, but like it's a shock that a company like Disney would settle any potential trademark problems ahead of time. I don't side with Monster Cable (TBH I had never heard of them before) but it all seems like 'he said, she said' at this point.

RogueM · Post by **RogueM** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 5:21 pm

how gross... I am upset

Soundloop · Post by **Soundloop** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 5:51 pm

cold c wrote:Yes, their entire "defense" seems to be that they are not technically suing these companies, but that doesn't mean they haven't contacted them or tried to obtain financial settlements out of court.

I still don't think they get the point-

I think that is very true.

I got a similar letter from the company a couple of years back in response to the uproar at that time.

In that case, It seems to have worked.

http://www.madmartian.com/legal/

Just because you have not technically filed suit against a company or entity doesn't mean that other
legal tatics haven't been used.

TM disputes always start with the lawyers letters and threat of legal action first, long before it ever goes to court. If you are a small business the threat of a suit and the expense of a drawn out legal challenge would be extremely stressful and daunting. Generally the goal being to make the party being challenged cave out of fear before it ever gets to a courtroom.

Given the madmartian.com results, it would be wise to contact the other parties mentioned in the article and find out the current status of things.

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until we have more info on this story from 2002 onward. That doesn't mean that I'll be inclined to open my wallet and by a Monster cable anytime soon..

Cheers,

TC

VicDiesel · Post by **VicDiesel** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:25 pm

shamann wrote:The Disney deal for instance, who knows what happened there, but like it's a shock that a company like Disney would settle any potential trademark problems ahead of time.

I was surprised at Disney as well. My guess is that the "settlement" was: Monster gets no money from Disney, but Disney will not embarrass Monster by saying so.

V.

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:47 pm

TennesseeVic wrote:I was surprised at Disney as well. My guess is that the "settlement" was: Monster gets no money from Disney, but Disney will not embarrass Monster by saying so.

Disney have a lot invested in intellectual property. If they even suspected that A) there was a chance they could be sued, or B) that a lawsuit against them would lose and potentially hinder the strength of any trademark by setting precedence, I would not be surprised for them to settle in some way (like the way you mentined, or maybe "here's fifty bucks" kind of thing).

DHR53 · Post by **DHR53** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:35 pm

I don't have any Monster cable... and frankly, I always thought it was just marketing hype, and went for the Radio Shack brand, myself! But apparently a lot of other people do! So are they saying... no more "monster anything products", or you can't name anything "monster..." Pretty ridiculous... and funny how the negative publicity garnered at record speed on the internet has "humbled him"... Ha Ha! He can keep his "Monster" cable AFAIK... I'll buy mine from any company that doesn't have Monster in the name!

crscheid · Post by **crscheid** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:39 pm

Isn't NAMM coming up soon?! If I were in Anaheim, I'd volunteer to hand out some information about their business practices.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:42 pm

shamann wrote:
TennesseeVic wrote:I was surprised at Disney as well. My guess is that the "settlement" was: Monster gets no money from Disney, but Disney will not embarrass Monster by saying so.
Disney have a lot invested in intellectual property. If they even suspected that A) there was a chance they could be sued, or B) that a lawsuit against them would lose and potentially hinder the strength of any trademark by setting precedence, I would not be surprised for them to settle in some way (like the way you mentined, or maybe "here's fifty bucks" kind of thing).

Disney are the most litigious company on the face of the rock. They go after anyone that infringes their i/p. If the snake oil salesman chanced it with them he'd soon find out why their unofficial motto is "Nobody f**ks with the mouse".

precisionsound · Post by **precisionsound** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:02 pm

I have posted a mail to "Mr Lee" and asked for a "Testimonial" for our "Monzter Guitars" SampleSet.

Maby im putting my head into the gap of a "real" monster now..

I hope not.

I think he will give a testimonal and everyone could have a laugh

Lars

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:21 pm

this is really interesting to me..

I see a quote saying:

http://www.audioholics.com/news/pressreleases/Monstercablestatement.php wrote:9) The newspaper articles and other rumors that said we sued the Chicago Bears, Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park, or a Cajun restaurant are all untrue. We have NEVER filed any lawsuits or other actions against them. Don’t just take our word for it, do a search of the court records, and the USPTO database, and we can guarantee that you will find that we have not sued (or even filed trademark oppositions) against these companies.

okay.. I think I will search the database..

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=76331133&pty=EXT wrote: Defendant
Name: Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc.
Correspondence: DAVID M. PROPER
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PROPERTIES, INC

versus

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=76331133&pty=EXT wrote: Potential Opposer
Name: Monster Cable Products, Inc. and Monster
Correspondence: Matthew A. Powelson
LaRiviere, Grubman & Payne, LLP

The fact that the document was an extention of time and was terminated does NOT stop the fact that the document is there.. they at least TRIED the initial motions to sue..

so I think cold c is correct..

While I respect that some lawsuits will occur, many of these are clearly just extortion practices... as one here stated, the word 'monster' in other's names and trademarks isnt diluting 'monster cable'.

I would agree with Noel Lee if they were filing against a company named "Monsters Cable" or "Monster Cables" or even "Monster Wires" etc.. but monstervintage? GIVE ME A BREAK.

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:28 pm

Nice one VitD.

Looks like ole Noel's been tellin porkies.

Perhaps audioholics should be made aware of this fact. After all, why are they giving Monstercable a platform to lie? Why don't they offer, as Noel rightly points out, a more balanced approach to this story by allowing both sides of the debate?

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:51 pm

munchkin wrote: Perhaps audioholics should be made aware of this fact. After all, why are they giving Monstercable a platform to lie? Why don't they offer, as Noel rightly points out, a more balanced approach to this story by allowing both sides of the debate?

Because they are sponsored by monster cables. That easy.

Soundloop · Post by **Soundloop** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:55 am

After reading that MC reply again.. I call bullshit.

bump.

Link:

http://www.snowmonsters.com/MonsterCable/media.html

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:16 am

I think it's a publicity stunt myself, that link made me even more sure of it...tell everybody you know...free advertising...I don't agree with the practice, but Monster cable is far from the only company doing such things...at least they give you a good product and their return policy is as good as there is. I have sold miles of Monster cable, I only use monster cable for my guitar....like I say this turner dude is getting everybody worked up over common business practice (poor business tactic imo) and it's working, a thread here, a thread on FL. Well I ain't shooting myself in the foot, I'll stick with the best cable made...BTW I think the problem with disney was monster inc...not the use of monster, but the two words monster inc...monster cable is incorporated...

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:20 am

I didn't read all the posts here...anyone been to monster cable's page..here http://www.monstercable.com/
notice the name on the page...monster, nothing else...quite possibly they have holdings under monster inc. Which would be trademark infringement by disney.

Monster Cable lawsuits...