Place a deer block out, sit in a tree, and wait...Bang!

I live in the bay area where Monster is located. Those egomaniacs wanted to take on Pixar and Disney because of Monsters, Inc.

What I don't understand is why PetSmart and PetCo don't do this to each other. I can NEVER get them straight. There's one of each in my neighborhood and they are seriously identical to me, right down to the names and the color schemes in the logo. One of them needs to change their name. I sure miss the good old days of shopping at Collar n Leash (easily confused for the nameless? gay leather bar across the street, but neither care enough to sue).

I can't see how this CAN make it to court? Trademarks and "names" are under categories. Like Apple records. They couldn't do anything to Apple computer until they did the iTunes thing (they were now under the same category - music). I don't remember if they were called categories, but you can have something called Candy in food, music and automotive and they're all kosher. Pet food/deer lick and audio cables... wow, that's pushing it.

Thanks monster for wasting tax payer money for this silly suit. We should start a class action against them for frivolous waste. Didn't they even go after cookie monster?

rabiddachshund, "monster" is indeed in the dictionary.

So is "coke," but if you don't capitalize it when referring to food/drink/etc (or do capitalize it when using it as a generic) be prepared to have a nasty communication from Coca Cola.

Yeah, this seems silly, but trademark protection does have to occasionally go to extremes.

Monster is doing nothing different than the RIAA. Rather than adjust their business model (in each case), they now try to raise revenue through lawsuits.

liar

Academy Awards

I say we start sending letters to Monster Cable saying we're confused about it, just to see if we can get them to sue Monster.com.

They'd certainly lose, and maybe Monster.com has deep enough pockets to shut them up for a while.

Here's the Wikipedia listing on Monster's litigation: [en.wikipedia.org]

That would explain why I have a living room full of deer and my surround sound won't work....

I was wondering why my picture has been looking so salty.

Seriously, the only thing Monster that I own is a surge protector. And that's because the place I bought my TV from threw it in for free. \

But it is the best sounding power I've ever heard.

After hearing they fired most of their American workforce and are suing everyone using the generic word "monster" I have not purchased anything they make. The terms "there's no such thing as bad publicity" is certainly inaccurate, and their actions may be killing whatever good name recognition their trademark used to warrant.

vs.

Monster

Dear Pricks,

I can see where the attorneys could become confused.

@Orv: "I think when it comes to defending a name no one is quite as nasty as the Olympic Committee, though."

I'd give that title to the "Academy Awards™". You see? I didn't even have to enter the "TM", they did that themselves.

This story is so ludicrous that it doesn't even need my pithy commentaire. I'm thinking that this company lacks any common sense. Consider:

- the amount of money required to initiate a lawsuit that is destined to fail;
- that were they to win the lawsuit it would not improve their market position or brand identity in the slightest anyway;
- brands their company as an aggressive jackass to the owners, employees, family and friends of the numerous corporations they are suing; and
- brands their company as a laughing stock jackass to those who watch or read about this story on every available news media that carries it.

Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe this sensationalism is intended to be (relatively) cheap PR for Monster. It HAS brought their name into general discussion in a wide variety of medias. Are they expecting that the negative association with such a meritless lawsuit will be overcome by reminding the world that they still actually exist?

I don't think so.

I think when it comes to defending a name no one is quite as nasty as the Olympic Committee, though.

I don't understand! I put the cable out there like it says, but I still haven't caught a Deer. This $100 Deer cable sucks, I'm going back the the old $20 salt lick I ued to use...

They'd certainly lose, and maybe Monster.com has deep enough pockets to shut them up for a while.

Even if they lose the case, they do have to actively defend their IP.

/actual results may vary if you are not a completely retarded ass hat like I am.

Listen, if a Best Buy employee can buy monster cables for $10 or less, how good are they really? They're just a way to make the retailers money.

First American Airlines attacks Google, and now this? Big corporations are trying to make lots of money on the assumption that the American public is composed of morons! I've had enough of it, and I hope they realize that the only publicity these stunts are generating is the kind that puts a bad taste in consumer's mouths.

If a coat hanger performs just as well as a Monster cable then sic those lawyers on all the dry cleaners and make 'em go back to folding...

@Canino: If you're a deer, then, perhaps there is a valid case after all.

Right ? I'd love to see them try to take on monster.com, who I'm pretty sure has been around a lot longer than the brand of audio cables.

And see my above post - they semi-successfully sued Monster.com already. Now they're just picking on miniature golf courses and deer wafer makers.

Just look at this deer trying to get at this guys monster cables. Got locked into the bathroom as a result...You can clearly see why monster maybe considering moving into the deer attraction business.

Has Monster Cable yet attacked Monster.com? I'd be curious to know who would come out on top in that battle.

All I can picture is Monster Cable's lawyers slapping a subpeona on Cookie Monster because his name infringes upon their "trademark." "Why you sue Cookie Monster? Cookie Monster not do nothing to you." of course this will just cause Telly (Monster) to go into obsessive worry fits over the whole debacle. Poor little Muppets.

i use salted coat hangers to lure deer.

but seriously using the judicial system to make a living should be illegal.

I don't know, that cable does look delicious.

Every time Monster sues some completely unrelated widget maker, the local newspaper writes about Monster Cable, the maker of supposedly high-end A/V cables. Then people who would otherwise only listen to the person at Crutchfield is all of a sudden aware of Monster cables. Had Monster not sued the widget maker, the customer would remain uneducated. Monster has apparently decided that no publicity is bad publicity when it comes to presenting a substitute good as a premium product.

I think that the next court who dismisses one of the cases needs to impose a hefty fine for wasting the court's time and resources. I think that attorney's fees plus the annual salaries of every non-Monster-affiliated person in the courtroom at the time of the dismissal would be an appropriate start.

My wallet can tell the difference. The deer lick has the same audio fidelity for a fraction of the price.

Yeah, Monster Cable is one of those parasitic companies that throw lawsuits around hoping to intimidate smaller companies in to settling. What do you expect from a company that sells $10 cables for $150.

They've tried to sue everyone from small audio companies. to a

fail.

I am not making a claim about their cable here as I have never tried it, just noticing that we get a lot of this "Monster looses claim" posts it seems.