KVR Audio

franknemola · Post by **franknemola** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:57 am

Hi All
just reported this thread to OSXAudio forum and sent a mail to M@#£$% Cables.

farlukar · Post by **farlukar** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:15 am

Soundloop wrote:

and another, please download and use as you like..

(notice that I quickly trademarked the word "boycott" so you'll have to pay to use this icon)

I just trademarked the trademark™. My lawyer will contact you soon.

Mighty_Hero · Post by **Mighty_Hero** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:54 pm

They have responded....

http://www.audioholics.com/news/pressre ... tement.php

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:03 pm

Mighty_Hero wrote:They have responded....

http://www.audioholics.com/news/pressre ... tement.php

Well that was nice. So nothing to see here for the time being I guess.

Who can we boycott next?

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:03 pm

I have responded...

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:06 pm

Can anyone confirm the veracity of his statement?

Mr A

PS. i see no mention of Mike Shkolnik's case in Monster's statement.

Mighty_Hero · Post by **Mighty_Hero** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:14 pm

I read that this morning and wanted to share with you all. I still can't figure out what they are suing and who now, if he really isn't going after ski monster and the like?

SecondSkin · Post by **SecondSkin** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:27 pm

shamann wrote:
Mighty_Hero wrote: Well that was nice. So nothing to see here for the time being I guess.

By my reading of the response they are not suing all these entities.....they are simply strong-arming them with their legal team. There is still ALOT to see here...

Mighty_Hero · Post by **Mighty_Hero** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:29 pm

Yep, what I gathered from it too.
Quote wasn't from me though above

VMan88 · Post by **VMan88** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:42 pm

Seems to me he is ducking the issue. He mention Snow Monsters multiple times and true, they are not suing them. It is the legal pressure they are putting on other companies and many have settled out of court.There is a difference between protecting your "trademark" and putting legal pressure (not suing YET) a company whose products have nothing to do with cabling or the like.

"Snow Monsters mistakenly portrayed that our objection to their attempt to register trademarks was a lawsuit, which isn’t true. We have not sued Snow Monsters. We would never try to harm a company whose focus is on ski education programs and products for children."

Then why object??? Object is a "nice" word for threatening to crush your company with legal bills?? What a joke.

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:44 pm

Err... so what was all the fuzz with that Mike Shkolnik dude and Disney about?
Nothing? All false information? Fake scanned documents?

Seriously, this reaction is laughable.
They try to get away with an apology for now and in another 1-2 years the next case will pop up.

f**k them.

cold c · Post by **cold c** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:56 pm

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-

We know we don't own the word Monster; however like any other trademark holder we do have the right and need to protect our Monster brand when it is in danger of being diluted, tarnished, or infringed.

But the brand is Monster Cable, not MonsterAnythingElseTheyDidntRegisterYet.

In the case of Snow Monsters, we have NEVER sued them, and we are not trying to harm their company. I think that their products are great and don’t cause us any problems, I have written them and told them so. They are also using the word “monster” for characters, not as a brand, which is how we use Monster. Please, see the list of our trademarks below that I have provided for you.

Snow Monsters is not in their list of registered trademarks, and no Monster "characters" appear in the list of registered trademarks. Neither X-wolf, Powder Pigs or Mogul Gophers appear in their list of registered trademarks.

farlukar · Post by **farlukar** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:02 pm

shamann wrote:
Mighty_Hero wrote:They have responded....

http://www.audioholics.com/news/pressre ... tement.php
Well that was nice. So nothing to see here for the time being I guess.

Who can we boycott next?

Monster shrimp?

no_barcode · Post by **no_barcode** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:08 pm

Does this mean I'm going to have trouble trade marking my Monster Cock? It's kind of like a cable. I mean - it can be plugged into certain things. It's very high quality, and it took me a good 20 years to perfect (don't laugh!) I also take it very seriously and defend it vigorously.

Yeah, I predict I'll be butting heads with Monster Cable very soon... We'll see who has the best Monster.

I use Radio Shack cables. The ugly ones that come in cheap plastic bags that are generally taped shut because someone bought the wrong cable and brought it back to the store, where it was then promptly re-stocked. That's class baby.

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:30 pm

Class 9: Consumer Electronics

In class 9 we have the following registered trademarks, some which date back as far as 1978:

Monster

Class 16: Consumer Electronics

Monster

Class 25: Clothing and Apparel

In Class 25, we have the following registered trademarks, some which date back over 15 years:

Monster

Class 41: Entertainment, Educational and Training Services

Monster Music
Monster Style

Hmmm...now that seems to me to be quite a comprehensive way of 'protecting' a trademark. Not much room to manoeuvre for other people using 'monster' to sell product or services.

It appears that Noel is claiming that everyone is making this up. Why would anyone bother to try to bismirch the 'good' name of monstercable? More info is needed I think before the jury is in.

Monster Cable lawsuits...