Shocker: Monster Cable Still Up To Its Old Tricks

from the speaks-to-credibility-your-honor dept

Right after the first of the year, it looked like Monster Cable might be taking a new tack in its trademark "strategy", after it dropped a lawsuit against a company called Monster Mini-Golf. Monster Cable has a long history of suing lots of business -- no matter what line of work they're in -- that use the word monster in their name, but given the backlash against it and its subsequent apology in the mini-golf case, it seemed that maybe, just maybe it was changing its ways. That was false hope, apparently, as it's now going after a company called Monster Transmission (via Engadget). The cable company apparently claims it "has no issue" with the transmission company, but that's news to one of its owners. Monster Cable also claims the suit was filed before its backdown in the Monster Mini-Golf case, as if that's supposed to make it okay. But if the company really "has no issue" -- why not just withdraw the suit?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Monster Cable Caves Again, With Oddly Worded Apology

from the monster-bullies dept

Well, it looks like after years and years of articles highlighting what an incredible trademark bully Monster Cable has been, the company has finally realized that maybe (sorta) it needs to reconsider its strategy (maybe). At least that's what I take from the news that the company has settled its trademark dispute with Monster Mini Golf that got plenty of attention when the Monster Mini Golf folks took to eBay to get out the word about how they were being bullied.

At some point, Monster Cable realized it was losing the PR battle (really badly) in this whole thing, and tried a new tack, claiming that it was just a small family business doing what it was required to do to defend its trademarks. Then it offered up a bogus "deal" whereby it pulled the lawsuit it had filed but still demanded that Monster Mini Golf pay it to "license" the name, though it promised to donate the money to charity. That's emotional bribery.

Either way, the matter was settled as 2008 came to a close when the top two folks from each company held a conference call without their lawyers present (initially, the lawyers were there, but they kicked them out). Monster Mini Golf can now go ahead with its trademark application and Monster Cable agreed to pay their legal fees. Monster Cable's CEO even issued an apology (sorta). After talking up how nice it was to work out an amicable deal in person without lawyers, he states:

I will say that this is a landmark kind of situation, as public opinion wins over what is the right thing to do for trademark protection of a famous mark. We have made the decision that public opinion, and that of our valued customers is more important than the letter of the law that requires us to prevent the dilution of our mark risk losing it.

Of course, it's not a landmark situation at all (even for Monster Cable -- who's been known to be on the receiving end of similar public relations nightmares for similar actions in the past). And, he's wrong that this is a case where "public opinion wins over what is the right thing to do for trademark protection." Monster Cable's overly aggressive attempts to block pretty much anyone from using "Monster" are not "the right thing to do" -- they're abuse of the trademark process. Public opinion was right: Monster Cable was being a bully, and it only backed down because public opinion made that clear. It's pretty weak in an apology for Monster Cable to act magnanimous for doing what the company should have done in the first place (i.e., leave Monster Mini Golf alone).

As for "the letter of the law" that only requires Monster Cable to police the use of its trademark in cases where there's likely to be confusion or dilution in its areas of business. There is simply no way that any reasonable person (let alone the moron in a hurry who has shown up at various trademark lawsuits) would confuse Monster Cable with Monster Mini Golf -- and thus the law does not require that Monster Cable stop others from using the word in those cases. While it's nice that Monster Cable has finally come to its senses, the real question is how it acts the next time this happens -- and given Monster Cable's history, it's likely to happen again soon.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Monster Cable: We're Not Trademark Monsters (TM)

from the of-course-that's-what-they-say dept

We've covered Monster Cable's long and illustrious attempts to abuse trademark law in trying to prevent absolutely anyone else from using the term "Monster," no matter how unrelated it is from Monster Cable's business. For the most part, the company has stayed quiet when accused of being a trademark bully, but after Monster Mini Golf did a good job whipping up public support via an eBay auction, Monster Cable has apparently started responding, by claiming it's not the trademark bully everyone makes it out to be:

Regardless of what false representations have been circulated about Monster, we are not a faceless corporate giant out to squash legitimate business concerns and rising entrepreneurs. We are in fact, a family-owned company that relies heavily on our brand name and reputation in order to continue serving our customers. We have always tried to provide our customers with the highest performance products at an affordable price.

While we are best known for our cable products, we also manufacture high performance accessories in business areas ranging in home theater, computing, gaming, portable entertainment and power management. To protect these business areas, we have sought and been awarded trademarks for each respective category. In addition to the areas above, in the past 30 years, we have also expanded the categories including sports and other lifestyle ventures. According to the trademark law, we must enforce our marks or we will lose them and they will become generic.

We were trying our best to avoid the lawsuit, and we are trying our best to settle the lawsuit.

There is a lot to respond to here, and we'll let folks in the comments respond to the questions over "affordable price" since Monster is notorious for being quite high priced. However, I'm not sure why it matters that it's a family-owned company. It doesn't change the fact that it's being overly aggressive and abusing the purpose of trademark law. It tries to paint its activities as being perfectly normal, but that's simply not true. We see a lot of trademark lawsuits around here, and Monster is definitely a lot more combative on trademark than most companies.

As for the claims that because its products work in other areas, that these trademark suits are legit -- that's simply incorrect. What a trademark covers is specific to what the companies does, and the tests concern whether or not there's customer confusion or brand dilution, and anyone would be pretty hard pressed to claim that Monster Mini Golf confuses anyone or damages Monster Cable's brand name in any way.

As for the claim that it must enforce or lose the trademarks, this is a common myth about trademark law. It is true that you need to enforce the uses of the mark -- but only in those direct markets. In the case of Monster Mini Golf or the deer salt lick, such usage will have no impact on making Monster Cable's brand generic and either they know it, or they're getting terrible legal advice. Tellingly, Monster Cable does not respond to the charges many have leveled that after either blocking a trademark application or suing others, Monster Cable then licenses back the Monster name to those who it stopped. As such it becomes pretty clear that it's not at all about stopping the name's usage and that the usage is clearly not confusing. So, Monster Cable may not consider itself a trademark monster, but it should show that with actions, not words.

Update: Ah, well, great. Monster Cable is now claiming that it's dropped the lawsuit against Monster Mini-Golf but is still demanding a licensing fee of $100/month, while claiming that it will contribute that and its own matching funds to charity. While it's great that Monster has dropped the lawsuit, it's ridiculous that the company is still demanding a license fee. Also, the company should at least admit that the only reason it's dropping this is all of the negative publicity generated by its heavy handed attempt to attack a business in a totally unrelated market.

61 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Monster Mini Golf Using eBay To Fight Monster Cable's Trademark Lawsuit

from the good-for-them dept

Monster Cable is famously litigious over its trademark -- suing just about anyone who uses the name "Monster" as a part of their corporate offering. Most of these lawsuits are bogus -- as trademark only covers the specific areas of business you're in, and doesn't give you complete control over the name. Thus, if you make a salt lick for deer called Monster Deer Block, you shouldn't have to worry about a lawsuit from Monster Cable... but you'd still get one, as pretty much everyone from the TV show Monster Garage to the Boston Red Sox (for the "Monster seats" on top of the "Green Monster" wall in left field) have found out.

Earlier this year, the company went after a small mini-golf operation in California called Monster Mini Golf, which we doubted anyone would confuse with the cable makers. Apparently, that wasn't the only Monster Mini Golf that Monster's lawyers were busy hassling. Chris Collett alerts us to the fact that a Rhode Island based Monster Mini Golf is also facing a lawsuit, and asking for help. But, there's an interesting twist here. The company is pleading it's case on eBay, and asking people to contribute to its defense fund via eBay. I'm not sure if this goes against eBay's terms of service, though I hope it doesn't. (Update: It did go against eBay's ToS, so it was taken down -- but the company has put up a new auction for a coupon at Monster Mini Golf which will serve the same purpose):

BUT...one man is destined to crush what we have built. He is the founder of Monster Cable Inc. (a company that makes Audio cables) and he's suing us for "Trademark Infringement".

In a nutshell, trademark infringement is based solely on "Likelihood of Confusion", or essentially, "could the average consumer be confused between the two?". The answer is no, as decided by the Patent and Trademark Office when they granted our trademarks, but Monster Cable Inc filed an opposition against that decision, and sued us.

To this day, this one man has opposed approx 400 companies...and it doesn't look like he EVER intends to stop. This is the true meaning of Corporate Bully.

Their tactic is to run the smaller companies out of money, and force them into a settlement where they surrender their name to Monster Cable Inc, who then licenses it back to them for a fee. Yes, so then we would be paying him for a concept and business we created and have worked very hard for! It is essentially extortion, but sadly, it is cheaper than going to trial, which can be crippling to small businesses like ours.

Unlike the 414 companies he has forced into settlement by bleeding them dry.... we have decided to continue on and fight the good fight. We have chosen to stand up for anyone who has ever been bullied, picked on, abused, or otherwise forced into an unfair or unjust situation by a bigger, stronger, (or in this case, richer) opponent.

Each small business that was forced to sign over their name is one more brick in the massive Monster Cable Inc wall, held together by the blood of those crushed beneath their corporate wheels. It is very very sad.

So far our legal fees are well over $100,000. (And counting) and will likely reach $250,000 when all is said and done. No wonder why 400 companies have waived the white flag!! 250K is the cost of "Winning"!! We need your help, we cannot afford to do it alone. Wondering if this is real or not...just google Monster Mini Golf and Cable. Or visit audioholics web site and you will also read about many other cases there as well.

What we are selling is a "Piece" of our legal defense and a small slice of Justice to you for $1. Yep, just a buck....and as Sally Struthers once said, that's less than a cup of coffee! Geez...at Starbucks, it wouldn't even buy you that!

In return for your gracious purchase, you will receive a heartfelt "Thank You" from us and the knowledge that you have helped defeat a corporate bully who has been abusing the legal system for years! And, if you print your paypal receipt and take it to any Monster Mini Golf location, we'll take $2 Off a round of Mini Golf! (that's double your money back! Reg price for 18 holes is between $5.50-$7.50)

This is interesting, as I hadn't heard that Monster Cable was apparently selling the Monster name back to people it bullied. That's even more obnoxious -- and a clear abuse of trademark law. Also, it's been a while since we've seen companies using eBay auctions for PR, so maybe that's making a comeback. Either way, if you want to help stop one of the biggest trademark bullies out there, maybe try to buy a share of the legal defenses, and hope eBay doesn't take the auction down.

69 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Monster Cable's Lawyers Realize That Even A Moron In A Hurry Knows The Difference Between A Salt Lick And A TV Cable

from the trademark-fun dept

Monster Cable has a long history of abusing trademark law to threaten and/or sue pretty much any company that uses the name "Monster" in its brand. That has included the TV show Monster Garage, a clothing store called MonsterVintage, Disney for the movie Monsters, Inc., the makers of Monster Energy drink, the Chicago Bears for having the nickname "Monsters of the Midway," and the Boston Red Sox for offering "Monster seats" on top of their famous "Green Monster" wall. We recently noted that it had also gone after Monster Mini Golf.

Of course, that's not how trademark law works. It doesn't give Monster Cable total control over the name Monster. It just gives the company the right to prevent others from using the brand in the same market in a way that is likely to confuse consumers. It's difficult to believe that anyone would think that Monsters, Inc., was somehow from Monster Cable. But, on and on it goes -- though, it appears that Monster Cable's lawyers were finally convinced to drop one suit. An anonymous reader points us to the news that Monster Cable has withdrawn its trademark challenge against the makers of Monster Deer Block, a salt and mineral lick designed to attract wild deer. Apparently, some lawyers for the makers of Monster Deer Block persuaded Monster Cable's lawyers that there was little chance of consumer confusion between the product and the makers of expensive audio/video cabling.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can We Send A Moron In A Hurry With A Mini Golf Club Over To Monster Cable?

from the monster-monster-monster-monster-monster dept

The company Monster Cable has a rather infamous reputation for way too aggressively trying to enforce its trademark on the word "monster." It's sued or threatened just about everyone, including the TV show Monster Garage, a clothing store called MonsterVintage, Disney for the movie Monsters, Inc., the makers of Monster Energy drink, the Chicago Bears for having the nickname "Monsters of the Midway," and the Boston Red Sox for offering "Monster seats" on top of their famous "Green Monster" wall. The latest, sent in by reader Ben S., is that the target is now Monster Mini Golf in California.

Now, because this always comes up in the comments on posts like this, let's address the key point that people always bring up, claiming that Monster "has to" enforce its trademark or face the mark becoming generic (like aspirin, kleenex or band-aids). That's not quite true. It is true that you have to enforce the mark -- but only in cases where it's likely to confuse people or dilute your mark in the area it's designed for. A trademark does not give you total control over the word. It is not designed as a "property right" but really as a consumer protection statute, to prevent people from getting confused and believing that one company or product is sponsoring another. That's why we have the lovely "moron in a hurry" test. If a moron in a hurry wouldn't be confused, then there's no violation. And I have a hard time believing that any moron (even one in a hurry) would see a mini-golf course and assume that it's associated with the company that makes ridiculously expensive tv cables.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Blue Jean Cable Shows One Way To Respond To Overly Broad Patent Threats

from the show-me-the-infringement! dept

A few folks have been submitting the response letter sent by Blue Jean Cable's President to Monster Cable after Monster sent a threatening letter claiming that Blue Jean violated various Monster design patents and trademarks. While the response is a bit over the top, Blue Jean's Kurt Denke makes it clear that Monster's threat letter appears to be nothing more than a fishing expedition/bullying tactic and he won't take it. He responds to each claim, noting that Blue Jean doesn't appear to infringe at all, and asking for much greater detail in response, rather than simply being bullied into submission. Design patents are rather limited, but it looks like Monster is acting as if they're utility patents in an effort to scare off Blue Jean Cable, not expecting that the company's execs might understand the difference between the two.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..