<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;monster&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 03:02:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Monster Fight: Can You Tell An Energy Drink From An Aquarium?</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/15533919767/monster-fight-can-you-tell-energy-drink-aquarium.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/15533919767/monster-fight-can-you-tell-energy-drink-aquarium.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Can you guess which brand is throwing its trademark power around with reckless disregard for common sense or possible confusion? That's right. Monster. Only in this case it's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=monster+energy+drink" target="_blank">Monster Energy Drinks</a>, whose legal team had apparently gone dormant after a streak of losses, rather than <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=monster+cable" target="_blank">Monster Cable</a>, whose legal team felt the average consumer couldn't tell the difference between an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080722/1513011763.shtml" target="_blank">overpriced cable and a deer salt lick</a>. <br /><br /> The Consumerist brings us the news that <a href="http://consumerist.com/2012/07/monster-energy-assumes-consumers-cant-distinguish-energy-drinks-from-fish-tanks.html" target="_blank">Monster (the Energy Drink) is looking to add to its streak of windmills tilted at, this time going after the Monster Aquaria Network</a>, under the belief that somehow innocent people looking for a pick-me-up beverage are ending up with extremely large fish tanks instead. <br /><br /> Further details of the cease and desist order can be found at the <a href="http://support.monsterfishkeepers.com/" target="_blank">site set up by the Monster Aquaria Network</a> to apprise its fans and customers of the situation. In addition to insisting that the Aquaria Network immediately cease usage of the word "Monster" and the letter "M," Monster Energy Drinks apparently feels it has staked a claim to certain colors:
<blockquote>
<i>Monster Energy sent a series of demands including, but not limited to, abandoning the trademark applications for the MonsterFishKeepers "M" symbol marks as well as ceasing to use those marks in connection with apparel &#038; accessories, refraining from using or applying for any marks containing the word "Monster" or the letter "M," </i><i><b>refraining from using the colors black &#038; green</b> on any MonsterFishKeepers.com or Monster Aquaria Network Websites or in connection with apparel &#038; accessories, and pay Monster Energy Corporation its attorneys' fees in connection with this matter.</i>
</blockquote>
Despite having used its stylized devil's-horns-and-tail "M" since 2005 and having registered this mark in 2007, Monster Energy still believes that it owns any iteration of "Monster" or the letter "M" in relation to... well, pretty much anything, I imagine. At least when it went after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/1003446477.shtml" target="_blank">Vermonster Beer</a>, it was in the same neighborhood (i.e. drinkable beverages). Of course, Monster was shamed into calling off its legal dogs after a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/0448336651.shtml" target="_blank">bout of bad publicity</a> and MonsterFishKeepers is obviously hoping the same happens here. If not, things don't look good AT ALL for MonsterFishKeepers, considering the legal system is routinely gamed by aggressive companies who know they can simply run their opponents out of money.
<blockquote>
<i>We strongly believe that the law is on MonsterFishKeepers.com's side, but MonsterFishKeepers.com will not be able to fund the legal proceedings that would be needed to resolve this dispute with Monster Energy. Unfortunately for MonsterFishKeepers.com, Monster Energy can file an unlimited number of appeals even if MonsterFishKeepers.com wins the first round of the case; in the end, Monster Energy would certainly outlast MonsterFishKeepers.com in the legal proceedings after MonsterFishKeepers.com runs out of money since there is no way that such a small company could compete with such a large company in terms of legal fees.</i>
</blockquote>
MonsterFishKeepers hope to expedite this public shaming via <a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/monster-beverage-corporation-do-not-sue-monster-aquaria-network-for-copyright-infringement">a petition at change.org</a>, in addition to providing contact information for Monster Energy Drinks at its website. Hopefully, this will result in a speedy retraction of the cease and desist, as there is no way Monster Energy sincerely believes MonsterFishKeepers is diverting morons in a hurry. This is simply a bully wandering the internet playground picking fights and shaking down smaller kids for lunch money.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/15533919767/monster-fight-can-you-tell-energy-drink-aquarium.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/15533919767/monster-fight-can-you-tell-energy-drink-aquarium.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/15533919767/monster-fight-can-you-tell-energy-drink-aquarium.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>tastes-like-bulls**t-to-me</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120719/15533919767</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:16:09 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Monster Energy Drink Backs Down Due To Public Pressure; Vermonster Beer Lives On</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/0448336651.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/0448336651.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall that we recently wrote about the effort by Hansen's drink company to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/1003446477.shtml">stop a small Vermont brewery</a> from offering Vermonster Beer, claiming that it infringed on the trademark they held for Monster Energy Drink (because any  moron would confuse beer with an energy drink).  That situation got a ton of publicity (all of it negative towards Monster Energy Drink and Hansens), and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=goorpy">Brendan</a> alerts us to the news that it looks like <a href="http://www.rockartbrewery.com/" target="_blank">Hansen's has backed down</a>.  And the guy behind the Rock Art Brewery (maker of Vermonster) has put up an <a href="http://www.rockartbrewery.com/uploads/20091022_rockartfinal.pdf" target="_blank">open letter with the timeline of events</a> (pdf) -- thanking everyone for creating the public pressure that got Hansens to back down.
<br /><br />
Of course, it looks like Hansens only backed down in this one instance.  Yet, as we noted, Hansens appears to have contracted with notorious <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/0235284973.shtml">abuser</a> of the trademark system, Continental Enterprises, who likes to send cease-and-desist letters to anyone even mentioning a trademark name.  Just recently, beyond the whole Vermonster situation, Hanses -- via CE -- has gone after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0420536584.shtml">a beverage review site</a> (which had a negative review of Monster Energy Drink) and an actor who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1237266605.shtml">was a movie monster</a>.
<br /><br />
Will Hansens call off Continental Enterprises from its abusive practices?
<br /><br />
It's great that public pressure got the company to back down on Vermonster beer, but those other situations didn't get nearly as much attention.
<br /><br />
Matt Nadeau, from the Rock Art Brewery is asking how we can continue to use the community that came together to help him to do more to protect other small businesses from the same thing.  As a starting point, why not point them to these other abuses by Hansens and CE and get Hansens to back down?  After that, it would be great to get people to recognize that we need <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090923/0215516292.shtml">serious trademark law reform</a> that brings trademark law <i>back</i> to its intended purpose: acting as a <i>consumer</i> protection technique against appropriation and confusion, rather than what many believe it's become: a property right and a monopoly.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/0448336651.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/0448336651.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/0448336651.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-what-about-the-others?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091023/0448336651</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:51:53 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Monster Madness: Monster Energy Drink's Hired Trademark Trolls Go After Movie Monster</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1237266605.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1237266605.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've recently covered how beverage company Hansen's hired a company called Continental Enterprises, who has a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/0235284973.shtml">long history</a> of abusing trademark law for profit (i.e., getting big companies to allow it to send threat letters to anyone who in any way uses a mark, even if it's clearly not a violation of trademark), and because of that, a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/1003446477.shtml">small Vermont brewery</a> and a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0420536584.shtml">beverage review website</a> found themselves on the receiving end of legal threats.
<br /><br />
Apparently, the monster madness doesn't stop there.  <a href="http://www.poleexercise.co.uk/" target="_blank">Andrew</a> points us to the news that that Continental Enterprises, on behalf of Hansen's and Monster Energy Drink has <a href="http://consumerist.com/5383338/monster-energy-threatens-actual-movie-monster-were-not-kidding?skyline=true&#038;s=x" target="_blank">also threatened a working actor</a> who was in a monster movie a few years ago, and had a <a href="http://www.trygve.com/blog_2009_10.html#14" target="_blank">photo taken of himself in costume</a> holding a Monster Energy Drink.  This amusing joke photo is apparently too much for the fine folks at Continental Enterprises, who insist it's "advertising and/or selling products that are confusingly similar to Monster Energy Drink" and demand that he cease and desist.
<br /><br />
At what point does Hansens and Monster Energy Drink realize that in this deal to outsource trademark bullying to Continental Enterprises, they've done significantly more harm to their own brands?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1237266605.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1237266605.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1237266605.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-is-getting-insane</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091020/1237266605</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:15:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Monster Energy Drink Hires Trademark Bully To Go After Beverage Review Site</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0420536584.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0420536584.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Just a couple weeks ago, we wrote about the ridiculous story of Monster Energy Drink trying to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/1003446477.shtml">stop</a> a small Vermont brewery from offering Vermonster beer, claiming trademark infringement.  The whole thing seemed ridiculous, but now we have a clue as to what's going on.  <a href="http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000001743" target="_blank">Against Monopoly</a> alerts us to <i>yet another</i>, but even <i>more questionable</i> trademark complaint by Monster Energy Drink -- <a href="http://www.bevreview.com/2009/10/15/monster-energy-vs-bevreviewcom/" target="_blank">this time against a beverage <i>review</i> site</a>.  Writing a <i>review</i> of a product is not trademark infringement.  However, the Against Monopoly writeup focused on the organization "representing" Monster Energy Drink and its parent company (Hansen's) -- and we immediately recognized the name from an earlier story.  Continental Enterprises is a firm that gets big brands to give it the right to "represent" them in trademark issues -- and then <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/0235284973.shtml">goes hunting</a> for <i>anything</i> that it can claim is trademark infringement, even if the use is clearly not infringing (such as a review site).  According to reports, CE works (at least in part) on a commission basis -- where it gets a cut of whatever money it squeezes out of others.  So it has little incentive to make sure the infringement is real.  It just wants to get as much money as possible.  I have no idea if the Vermonster dispute also involves Continental Enterprises, but going after a beverage review site is pretty ridiculous.  This can't be doing good things for the Monster Energy Drink brand.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0420536584.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0420536584.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0420536584.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-can't-get-enough</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091019/0420536584</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:37:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>A Monstrous Trademark Dispute That Has Nothing To Do With Monster Cable</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/1003446477.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/1003446477.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen so many stories about trademark disputes involving <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?site=&#038;cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=monster+cable">Monster Cable</a> that, as soon as I saw that Jonathan had submitted a story about a trademark dispute over the word "monster," I assumed it must involve them.  But... nope.  No such luck.  This particular dispute involves <a href="http://www.7dvt.com/2009monster-mash" target="_new">Monster Energy Drink complaining about the attempted national trademark on Vermonster beer</a>, a play on the fact that the beer is from Vermont.  The guy behind Vermonster called up the energy drink company's lawyer, and said there shouldn't be a problem since he wasn't going into the energy drink business, and as long as MED stayed out of the beer business, there wouldn't be an issue.  But the lawyers for Monster Energy Drink said no deal.  The Vermonster guy says he's going to fight it, even if it costs a bunch of money to take on MED, saying that it's a question of principles.  Maybe we can have Monster Cable try to arbitrate a solution...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/1003446477.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/1003446477.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/1003446477.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>monster-mash</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091009/1003446477</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Shocker: Monster Cable Still Up To Its Old Tricks</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090409/1525324455.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090409/1525324455.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Right after the first of the year, it looked like Monster Cable might be taking a new tack in its trademark "strategy", after it <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090106/1546523298.shtml">dropped</a> a lawsuit against a company called Monster Mini-Golf. Monster Cable has a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041110/0531219.shtml">long history</a> 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 href="http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/monster-cable">a company called Monster Transmission</a> (via <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/09/monster-cable-learns-nothing-sues-monster-transmission/">Engadget</a>). 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?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090409/1525324455.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090409/1525324455.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090409/1525324455.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>speaks-to-credibility-your-honor</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090409/1525324455</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Monster Mini Golf Using eBay To Fight Monster Cable's Trademark Lawsuit</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081203/1332043008.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081203/1332043008.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Monster Cable is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?site=&#038;q=monster+cable">famously litigious</a> over its trademark -- suing just about <i>anyone</i> 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080722/1513011763.shtml">salt lick</a> 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.
<br /><br />
Earlier this year, the company went after a small mini-golf operation in California called <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1940111131.shtml">Monster Mini Golf</a>, 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.  <a href="http://addic.tv">Chris Collett</a> alerts us to the fact that a Rhode Island based Monster Mini Golf is <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&#038;item=250335844365" target="_new">also facing a lawsuit, and asking for help</a>.  But, there's an interesting twist here.  The company is pleading it's case <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&#038;item=250335844365" target="_new">on eBay</a>, 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. (<b>Update</b>: It did go against eBay's ToS, so it was taken down -- but the company has put up <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&#038;item=250336911645&#038;category=1469&#038;_trksid=p2773.m263&#038;_trkparms=algo%3DSI%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D40%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D54">a new auction</a> for a coupon at Monster Mini Golf which will serve the same purpose):
<blockquote><i>
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".
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
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! 

<br /><br />
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)
</i></blockquote>
This is interesting, as I hadn't heard that Monster Cable was apparently <i>selling</i> 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 <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20031218/101247.shtml">eBay auctions for PR</a>, 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081203/1332043008.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081203/1332043008.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081203/1332043008.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081203/1332043008</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 18:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Can We Send A Moron In A Hurry With A Mini Golf Club Over To Monster Cable?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1940111131.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1940111131.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041110/0531219.shtml">just about everyone</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=41996" target="_new">Monster Mini Golf in California</a>.
<br /><br />
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 <i>in the area it's designed for</i>.  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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060330/1829246.shtml">"moron in a hurry"</a> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1940111131.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1940111131.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1940111131.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>monster-monster-monster-monster-monster</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080515/1940111131</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>