On the one hand, you have overpriced ripoff speaker cable.

On the other you have a Mini-Golf course with a windmill and fiberglass gorilla.

I don't think there's any confusing the two. Nope. Not a chance.

All my analog cables, and the brand I recommended to everyone that asked me, used to be Monster Cable as their analog cable products really are quite good. However, once I heard about Monster Cable's campaign of abuse against small companies I haven't purchased any more of their products and never will again until they end this practice. I make sure to warn everyone that asks me about what cabling to buy not to purchase any Monster Cable products and proceed to tell them about this campaign of harassment that Monster Cable has engaged in, most people are horrified and agree that they will also never purchase another Monster Cable product as long as they continue with this behavior.

Hopefully other people will do the same and together we can put enough pressure on Monster Cable to stop this horrific practice.

Specifically, he said, "They have the ability to use the name and not pay anything, and the trademark office will decide if there is a conflict," as well as, "We are not asserting damage, and we are not asking for any payment for damage."

So from the sound of it they've cooled things off, but my general perspective on Monster Cable hasn't changed.

If Monster Cable is aware of Monster Mini Golf and does not sue, then the trademark is weakened. It could be argued in court, that Monster Cable, by not taking action, has agreed that they do not own the expression "Monster [insert word here]". Obviously - they do not own every expression that fits this format, but failure to enforce the trademark can be considered a statement that they don't own *ANY* expression that fits the format "Monster [insert word here]", except for the one ending in "cable". The solution that they came up with is respectable - it costs the mini gold company a trivial amount, but it is one that will have a public record. No one can point to Monster Mini Gold and use their existence to undermine Monster Cable's trademark. Truthfully, they would have been content with a ruling that "no one could possibly mistake putt putt for speaker wire, so the trademark doesn't apply" - because that ruling would apply only to the expression "Monster Mini Golf".

No, it's not a perfect law - but considering the abstract nature of even the idea of a trademark, this really isn't a bad solution. The other option would be to require the government to enforce trademarks, which would be a constitutional nightmare.

That being said, I agree that no rational person would confuse Monster Mini Gold for Monster Cable, but no rational person would ever pay $80 for a brightly colored version of a $5 cable that no one will ever see. Rational people would never try to buy cables at the Monoprice Roller Rink, but monpprice.com makes a lot less money than monster (and their $5 cables are so...boring.)

This is ridiculous, I wish there could be a common sense view of law. Like take a statistically valid poll and ask when you hear the word monster what do you think? If 60% of the people don't mention your product then sorry you don't have a real claim to the word. I realize that slants things to people who have money to advertise like mad but a great product in a free market system should be able to succeed on its own. Now if this was the Beastly Cable company then I think the threshold should be like 30%.

You completely missed the point. The comment was from the view of Monster Mini Golf, who, and rightly so, only cares about staying in business.

@Southern: Please add yourself to the list of people who think they know something about trademark law, but really don't.

@YatesDampyman: No, you can't trademark a word. That's simply flatout wrong (regardless of who you claim to work for). A trademark registration is specific to a business. It doesn't matter how long ago they registered the Monster trademark -- they don't own the rights to the "word", only to its use in the businesses they registered it for. And really they have no case for "dilution" on the basis that they are a "famous name" like Rolls-Royce, for instance, which consistently goes after anybody claiming to be "the Rolls-Royce of XYZ".

@snowburnt: Like a lot of people on the internet, you think you know more about trademark law than you really do. Sorry.

Yes, you have to defend a trademark to retain it. But "defend" does NOT mean you have to sue or threaten to sue anybody who uses a similar name. It means you have to defend it against anybody whose actions would "dilute" it. Monster has neither an obligation nor an excuse for going after Monster Minigolf, despite the excuses made for them by people with half an understanding of trademarks.

Now that it's drawn attention, it's better that they don't make any money out of it.

So in their own write up of WHY they are suing, they basically admitted they have absolutely no basis of a lawsuit, nor have they had one in ANY of the lawsuits beyond possibly the monster.com one.

Nothing Monster Cable can say at this point will hide the fact that in recent years they have abused trademark law for financial gain. As has been pointed out time and again in this very threat before you decided to contribute, they can NOT trademark monster, so the question becomes, what pray tell do they HAVE trademarked that a "quality" cable company could possibly feel a mini-golf chain could infringe on.

Are they planning on releasing "quality" golf balls that are basically 11 cent balls that they charge 10 dollars for the monster name on?

It might be possible to have some sympathy for Monster Cable here if this were just about the one case. They have a pattern of Bush Doctrining their trademark.

Granted one company is in home theater and the other golf, I can see them overlapping.

Monster has the trademark. It appears that they require MANY companies to pay nominal license fees in order to keep the record of defending that trademark.

Part of the problem is the US law that requires them to defend the trademark to keep it. If they aren't careful the name could become generic enough that someone could market monster TVs, and that WOULD cause confusion with the cable maker.

I am pretty biased against Monster cable. They work hard in collaboration with retailers to rip off the unsuspecting electronics purchaser. Sales people everywhere try to convince me that my digital video will look better and my digital audio will sound better if I use an expensive monster cable instead of an $8 equivalent.

But you used the word "ergo" so you must know what you're talking about...

How can you NOT be upset when you can't buy an overpriced cable that they try to forced you to buy(or you wont get the full hd LOL) at a monster mini golf. That is not right.

Dartmouth is right. I emailed Monster, and actually got a very good response back from them. I forwarded it to Consumerist, and never heard anything back from them. Why is Consumerist taking sides in this without posting all of the evidence?

I say, read it for yourself:

[www.monstercable.com]

It doesn't all go away... maybe for them, but give a bully fuel and they'll keep going until it comes back to bite you in the ass. In this case, they'd just be letting these fuckers walk all over them, giving them incentive and support to sue other small companies.

@ludwigk: If trademarks are automatic, and you don't have to register them, then what process was it that required me to pay the government hundreds of dollars to end up with 2 trademarks in my name?

I see another lawsuit....

@xspook: they did look at teh veyr bottome of monster.com's front page it asks if you were looking for monster cables. They've also sued pixar and disney for monsters INC(the movie) and hansen(now Coca-cola) soda for the monster energy drinks.

Yeah, for having only 500 employees, they sure are in a lot of businesses. Even if they outsource like mad that's a lot.

There's different ways to handle the protection of your trademark. In this case, since the trademark is for Monster Cables, you can bet that there's no need to worry about a miniature golf course. If they REALLY deemed it necessary to protect the trademark from there, all they have to do to protect the trademark is to send a letter saying that it is their trademark! They don't have to go and sue the shit out of someone for money or go as far as to actually try to get them to license the name.. they're vindictive, greedy, and it's going to bite them in the ass.

Yeah that review is classic comedy, kudos to the author.

What's even better are the four below it that are absolutely serious in their praises of their Monster Cable (tm). One actually said, 'well you've already spent a bundle on that TV, you might as well spend a fortune on the cable to hook it up.'

As if it were your civic duty to waste money on overpriced wires. PT Barnum was right.

For starters, in your last sentence I think you meant trademark infringement rather than copyright infringement. Here, as others have claimed, there really isn't even a good faith claim that there was infringement or blurring involved.

The term in dispute is "Monster." It is a generic word and as other have said cannot be protected on its own. The whole concept of trademarks is that they are related to the particular business sectors in which the mark is used.

According to the USPTO, where the trademark is registered, Monster Cables is a registered trademark in the following markets: Electrical and electromagnetic signal transmitting, amplifying, receiving, and converting devices, namely, cables, wires, and connectors for use with electrical, electronic, and computer devices.

Anything beyond the aforementioned categories is fair game (unless someone starts using "Monster Cable" in another business sector and there is a risk of consumer confusion or trademark dilution).

With that explained, there really isn't any way that a mini-golf chain would in any way enter into the domain of Monster Cables. Ergo, this suit is baseless and absurd.

I don't see them suing Monster.com....

as far as the franchise fee, it can be a non-revokeable franchise.

Yes, Monster has trademarks in other industries besides just cables, but they don't seem to have one for Mini Golf. Breath Mints, cleaning products, yes. Mini Golf, no.

Let's call today, "The Big Read!"

Excellent reference...

Thats Why they are suing. You can use a Monster Golf Club in place of a Monster Cable, and get the same sound.

@friendlynerd: wow, hell of a lot of anti-Monster sentiment going on here... like every story, there are two sides, and Monster's page goes a long way to explaining their point of view(although if I decided to start a grocery store chain called "Tide Produce" I doubt that Tide Detergent would go after me, Monster Cable). Their point about defending their brand is well-taken, however instead of limiting their defense to markets that are in direct competition or could confuse, they essentially are trying to own the word "Monster" outright. For example, in the future, it is likely that they would go after any bar advertising a "Monster Party" - even if they meant a party where you dress up as a monster...

What really bothers me with this approach is that it unfairly removes the word "Monster" from the public domain (the fault of which probably relies on the trademark office and the legal system). Imagine if someone owned "General" for example; no more General Motors, General Dynamics, General Electric, AM General etc. This is essentially what they are proposing.

@sega8800: This has already been done. They also went after the Boston Red Sox for the Green Monster. The same Green Monster that was dubbed so in 1947. Was Monster Cables making cables back then?

@Segador: But were you so the upset?

I have over $1500 in their products. I won't be making any more purchases from them as a result of this. I can find other cables from companies who are better corporate citizens.

Later today I'm going to call Monster Cables and ask them how much a round is. Hopefully I can get them to break down and say that all they do is sell cables.

The school replaced it with a logo that looks very close to the Ralph Lauren logo. You'd think they might have thought that through a little better.

God, the part I love about that is that, while they make sure that people know that Monster Mini Golf is a chain of mini-golf places and NOT a mom and pop place, they still try to paint themselves as some sort of tiny, downhomey type of cable supplier. These people are so ridiculous. If I were the judge I would fine them big bucks for this bs.

I'd like to thank everyone for correcting me on those points where I was mistaken.

[cgi.ebay.com]

Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements. I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.

You can read the whole one here :
[www.audioholics.com]

Slow news day?

Please don't provide legal advice when you don't know what you're talking about. You're creating more harm than good.

Reading this, it appears to be that Monster Cable made a somewhat reasonable attempt to protect its brand. I think I agree with consumerist 95% of the time, but in this case, there is a lot of posturing where they couldn't possible be sure there would be no monetary damage to brand confusion, especially if the mini golf company was trying to expand usage of the brand. When it realized there was bad press and the value of the lawsuit would outweigh its benefit, they dropped it... still seems reasonable.

I'm still on board with thinking Monster Cables pricing and product claims have always been ridiculous... although I put most of the blame in Best Buy (and other company) employees that try to pawn off a 100 dollar surge protector as something totally neccesary to buy, though coming from people who try to sell 40 dollar warranties on 90 dollar products, none of htis is surprising.

Continue to criticize Monster Cables for medicore products that are way overpriced, but I'm don't disagree with lawsuits to protet copyright infringment.

@drdom: I keep telling you guys. Monster feels that since their customer base is dumb enough to buy obscenely over priced cables for home electronics that they're dumb enough to get mini golf and cables mixed up. I'm also sure they felt the same way about the energy drink business as well. I mean, you wouldn't want a customer to buy an energy drink and try to hook up a home theater system with it or on it.

"because, honey, we don't have enough money to defend your right to dress up as a monster in a court of law. you're just going to have to be princess unicorn again this year"

WTF

I think Monster Cable makes some really good point except for one thing... it's a chain of fragging miniature golf courses!

I somehow manage to make it through life without confusing Monster Cables for Monster Energy Drinks, or Cookie Monster, so I think I will somehow be able to keep from confusing mini-golf with expensive cables.

And is Segways for Vets really the best charity they could come up with? Really?

"You know, it would be real unfortunate if somethin' were to, ya know, sorta happen to yer nice little golf course here. Just pay us $100 a month and we can make sure that don't happen"

The troll has been fed

What about Monster Energy drinks? Is that licensed?

Also, the supplemental documentation shows other companies that sued for trademark infringement, but a lot of the cited examples smack of settlement and capitulation rather than legitimate trademark abuse. Extra Virgin? That's a stretch for me, since I'd bet good money it was for a line of olive oil products.

[www.australianextravirgin.com.au]

If this was an example of trademark abuse being handed to me in court, it's a really weak excuse and I'd toss it out. IANAL, but I think abuse of a trademark name is supposed to be a misrepresentation of the trademark's description for it to be considered a legitimate lawsuit. I've handled some trademark paperwork before and the actual trademarks are pretty explicit about what they cover. I can see the request for the trademark of "Monster" to be denied on general terms of it being too generic to trademark like "Windows" or "PC". But I don't see merit for Monster Cable to pull this on the minigolf company when there's an energy drink on the market that already uses the same name.

Not that I was ever going to buy another Monster Cable ever again anyway, but now I think I will graduate to making sure none of my friends buy Monster Cables ever again as well.

@tc4b:

Monster Cobbler (peach cobbler)
Monster Cobbles (paving stone supplier)
Monster Scrapple (weird pork-parts cooked & gelled)
Monsterist (The new Gawker blog devoted to monsters)

1) Monster ONLY owns certain trademarks in relation to Monster Cable, none of which pertain to Monster Mini-golf unless they take a hugely broad stance on entertainment which the courts would roll their eyes at.

2) Monster in it of its self can NOT be trademarked it is a common word and as such if THATS how they are looking at it it would only take one company with a big enough bankroll willing to stand their ground to get ALL OF MONSTER CABLES TRADEMARKS REMOVED.

You dont see Apple running around suing every utterance of the word Apple do you? Thats because their is only a narrow range of issues that Apple could even HOPE to be able to file a valid lawsuit. In fact the whole Apple Records fiasco had much to do with the fact that Apple encroached on music territory as a computer company thus why the lawsuit was deemed valid.

Now, who's to say Monster Cable doesn't change the terms immediately after Monster Mini Golf agrees?

So.. they'd (in theory) still donate all the money, but this whole thing is so underhanded I can't believe it.

If you're not a lawyer, don't argue shades of grey in copyright law. You'll find a comment much further up the thread that explains the concept Monster is trying to use erroneously and why their excuse is complete claptrap.

I also mentioned Blue Jeans Cable's fight with Monster Cable in my email. They didn't say a word about that. They know they were off on that one.

It's obvious that one is for teeth, and one is for all your civil engineering, surveying, and soil testing needs...I'll leave you to guess which one is which

[cyber.law.harvard.edu]

Yeah, they're so selfless over there at Monster cables. I'm so glad I've never purchased any of their overpriced crap.

Yes they may have a bully like Monster Cable coming at them for use of a general word like monster from the dictionary.

But what makes them think they have the right to use a logo which is recognizable to anyone who has even once seen a monster energy drink.

a comparrison of both the logos

[i172.photobucket.com]

Similar colors, the entire typography is remiscant of the Monster Energy green M, and the M itself is very similar to that of Monster Energy big green M.

@Southern:

You speak too broadly.

The necessity of defending the mark comes up in an action to show abandonment. For Monster Cable, this would mean showing they failed to defend against confusingly similar uses. Uses that create confusion in the marketplace as to the origin of goods.

This does not do so, and there is no reasonable (or unreasonable) risk of a finding of abandonment.

The trademark scheme is not set up to create unnecessary litigation to ensure the protection of marks. The trademark scheme does not require reasonable companies to file frivolous lawsuits against other companies just to maintain their mark.

The whole protecting the mark to avoid abandonment claim is a red herring to justify what is going on.

Lastly: The trademark office doesn't take trademarks away. They could not do that. It would require a challenge, in court.

@What The Geek: But if Monster Cable goes bankrupt, from whom will I purchase my costly clothes hangers from? Well theyd prolly just go to Congress and get a bailout anyways...

@Corporate_guy: And being a common, normal English word (to build on this in response to Southern) is a completely different playing field than the one for Pepsi, a made-up word.

@tmlfan81: Coup de grace: Monster Minigolf should deny the "offer" (pshah, that's not an offer!), immediately begin donating $100 a month to a charity of their own choice, with a serious, needful purpose behind it, and then drag Monster Cable into court and hand them their asses. Then they win on EVERY front. Even better if they pony up more than $100/mo for the charity.

@Mr. Guy: Yeah, I was going to read all the posts to make sure someone else didn't mention this. You'd think that as much as Monster Cables cost, they could afford some edumacation. Or at least an editor.

I understand that trademark holders are required to defend all violations of their trademeark, or are deemed to have abandoned it or consented. But unless Monster Cables has present or demonstrable future plans to go into the mini golf business, they have less than even odds of prevailing, but the do have a case. Not a good one IMHO. But there are precidents.

As absurd as it seems, you can trademark and/or patent things that you really shouldn't be able to. I'm trying to find the citation for a case I was aware of where a porn movie producer fought with Burger King over who owned the "Whopper". A candy company who made a product called Whoppers also got dragged into the situation at one point.

This is what happens when there are too many lawyers. The current ratio is estimated to be something like 1 attorney for every 211 people in the USA, not factoring in illegal immigrants. All of them have bills to pay and families to feed. Is it any wonder?

Wow... That is CRAZY! Monster.com should have held out. Nothing like having to provide free advertising for an absolutely unrelated company.

They have already trademarked the name "Monster" 30 years ago, so those claiming that you can't trademark that word are wrong, they already have. Monster MiniGolf is now trying to trademark that same name as well as other similar ones which Monster Cable already owns and uses (they must use the trademark in order to keep it, according to law).

Monster Cable is not claiming that there will be confusion between them and the mini golf business. If you read the letter, they state that they filed for fear of dilution of their brand.

"Blurring occurs when the power of the mark is weakened through its identification with dissimilar goods. For example, Kodak brand bicycles or Xerox brand cigarettes. Although neither example is likely to cause confusion among consumers, each dilutes the distinctive quality of the mark."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#5

I am no fan of Monster Cable, but I have no problem with them trying to protect their mark, as it is the law that they have to protect it or they will lose it and have no control over it.

IANAL, but I do work for a large firm of IP lawyers (not related to this case or these companies in any way), so I see stuff like this all the time.

If a company doesn't fight a trademark every time they are made aware of them it could be a big chip against them when trying to justify that they own a particular trademark, since there is no official trademark registry.

That said, most companies in this situation will sue half-assed just to have it on the books that they defended their trademark and then let it go. This is getting extreme.

The way people comment on these cases reminds me of the McDonalds Hot Coffee lady lawsuit. If you hear a blurb about a case it may seem ridiculous, but if you actually look into it just a little bit you might understand why these things happen the way they do.

@Mr. Guy:

Thanks for the tip, Mr. Guy. I found the article at [consumerist.com] and will peruse it. :)

Monster Cable is not a "famous mark". It's the holder of a dictionary term in one field. If someone would have made electronic equipment brand-named "Monster", they might have a case.

Monster Cable has a business model of registering everything as a trademark, and suing anyone who uses the name "Monster", even in fields (like miniature golf and similar family entertainment venues) that they do not do business in.

Monster Cable could rightly be called a bunch of extortionists.

The problem here is that, as others have stated, the word "monster" is an ambiguous word that has been used for hundreds of years to describe scary creatures. It has been used in film on many occasions, even in the title of films, "Monster's Ball", "Monster", and so on. In fact, IMDB shows there are 9 different movies or tv shows with the name "Monster". That fact should dilute the trademark claim.

Secondly, as I understand it, Monster Cable will need to demonstrate that Monster Mini Golf's use of the word "Monster" in it will cause confusion among consumers. I certainly wouldn't go to "Monster Mini Golf to buy cables, would you?

I am reminded of when the Jacksonville Jaguars and the Jaguar car company got in a tiff about the logo. Not the name, the LOGO of the football team. Additionally, as a resident of the Jacksonville, FL area, there are a TON of "Jaguar" this-and-that companies out there: Jaguar Computer, Jaguar taxi and Jaguar Food mart just to name a few. Neither the team nor the car company are beating down any doors (and you'd think the car company would go after the taxi company)...

What this is all about is a company "vigorously" defending what I am sure will be deemed an invalid trademark. This kind of douchebaggery is why the USPTO needs to really go back to the drawing board with how they accept and validate patents and trademarks.

[www.bluejeanscable.com]

Monster Cable has not set up any mini-golf courses, fun centers, or other associated family entertainment venues. Even though they are trying to "defend" their trademark, what they're doing is BARRATRY, and some could say, EXTORTION.

Monster's MO is to frivolously register trademarks, then sue unsuspecting businesses who (rightly) believe "Monster" is a generic name meaning either a scary creature or a large whatever.

[www.facebook.com]

Anyone else interested in joining and plastering the page with the bad press? They only have 137 fans currently, we could add just as many non-fans.

@esd2020: Exactly. Judges ruling in favor of things like this enforce the idea that Monster Cable owns the word "Monster", which bolsters their position for extorting more money in the future. That is the only reason they take small companies like Monter Minigolf to court.

[monsterminigolf.com]

Scroll down to "We have responded to a few of the statements..."

@hi: Gosh Darnit! And here I was, dragging my golf club and shoes all the way to the Bay Area, only to find that Monster Cable just sold a bunch of cables!

I'd tender a guess that Monster Cables is doing this for all the free publicity.

There needs to be some sort of oversight with the courts that can spot and prevent abuse of the legal system like this.

I take back my earlier statements about Monster & defending their brand. These lawsuits are just frivolus. Look at some of these lawsuits:

Companies Sued By Or Threated With Law Suit By Monster Cable

Bally Gaming International (Monster Slots)
Blue Jeans Cable
Boston Red Sox (offering Monster Seats)
Boudreaux's Cajun Kitchen (Monster Shrimp)
Chicago Bears (Mosnters of the Midway)
Coleman, Steven T. (Doctor Zarr's Amazing Funk Monster)
Disney Enterprises (Monsters Inc)
eMachines.com (eMonster computer)
Hanna-Barbera Productions (Scooby-Doo and the Monster Of Mexico)
Monster.biz
MonsterBook.com
Monster.com
Monster Computer Cases
Mosnter Energy Drink (Hansen beverage)
Monster Garage (Discovery Channel TV show)
MonsterHTPC
Monster Mash
Monster Mini Golf (filed May 12, 2008)
MonsterMoney.com
Revell-Monogram (Swamp Monster)
MonsterVintage.com
Snow Monsters (a company that teaches children about Snow safety)

So I WAS on the fence, but after doing a little research, I've changed my stance. Any they wonder where the ill-will from customers are coming from? Sheesh.

The company is keeping true to its name and being a Monster of an asshole. They only sue theses guys because of their comparative size.

Why not sue organizations/identities that are much more associated with the name than they are.

Monster Energy Drinks
Monster.com Job Site

Did they sue Disney when "Monsters, Inc." came out? Did they give the finger to Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I hope the only thing that gets associated with Monster Cables now is a steaming pile.

@downwithmonstercable: But that's not the point. Monster [Cable] knows that by involving a worthwhile, high profile charity they would only be lessening their worldly impact by extorting funds from another company all in the name of claiming ownership of one word in the English language.

I couldn't imagine very many charities wanting to take on "blood money" from Monster Cable over this. Wouldn't it be interesting if a charity issued out a press release stating they would be rejecting any and all funds from Monster that would be derived in part by this latest extortion scheme?

@tmlfan81: That's exactly right - legally they haven't a leg to stand on. But their tactic is to bleed the little guys dry. I love how Monster's CEO still claims it's his little wholesome business, when they are actually a business giant in the cable industry.

FWIW, I just ordered three cables from Monoprice for my new TV. The HDMI cable I bought was somewhere around $10. Monster's is $80.

@hi: Its funny how this one basic question cannot be asked before a judge or a jury without incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars and nearly bankrupting a small business all in the name of defending their right to operate independent of another similarly named entity operating in a completely different venue.

Unless Monster Cable has always wanted to set out and start up their own chain of Mini Golf facilities, I see no reason why this case has merit. If there is any confusion here, please direct me to it. In the last couple of days and weeks, I can honestly say that I was unaware of Monster Mini Golf until I heard about the suit. As an educated individual, I can honestly say that if I were looking for audio and video cables, a basic text search query would not even include the text "mini golf" and would limit my results to Monster and their direct competitors.

@Heyref:

They sued Monster.Com in 1999. The companies settled in February 2000, but agreed to keep the terms confidential.

go outside and play hide and go fuckyourself

[www.bestbuy.com]
(read the customer review by bd251lps, funny)

My $6 (shipped) Amazon HDMI cable works great.

Monster is one of few companies I truly hate.

"regarding your frivalous lawsuits: You can't trademark the word "Monster", and I hope you collectively choke on fire."

Poor MonsterMinigolf

Could it be that Capcom a large company that could pound him into the dirt?

They are willing to drop the case if the mini-golf company pays them $100/month per franchise? That sounds like extortion to me. The name of the mini-golf company is "Monster Mini Golf". It is not named "MonsterCable Mini Golf".
They should these companies alone unless, of course, they actually use MonsterCable in their name.

It's a shame that a company is so greedy, it insists on using the court system in this way. I can't wait until a judge with an ounce of common sense finally throws out their lawsuits.

I continue to tell everyone I know to never buy anything with the Monster Cable logo on it.

Will they sue the creator of the song Monster Mash? I was entertained by that when I was 10.

You have to understand here, Monster Cable has been doing this for YEARS now, and none of their targets have had anything remotely to do with Monster Cable or cabling in general. They are trying to say they have a trademark on Monster, which is completely false.

its extortion plane and simple, which is why they have been going after small businesses and not against places like Monster.com who could crush them.

@azzy: I can think of a hundred charities that would have a much greater impact than these two.....

Suing is a far easier way to make money.

I went to MonsterMiniGolf looking to buy some cables and gosh darnit it was a mini golf establishment!! I was so the upset!

@azzy: Of course it is a trap, and you hit the nail on the head that refusal to agree to donating to charity could be seen as unethical or immoral on the part of Monster Mini Golf. Monster Cable has seen the case now to go to the court of public opinion and they know that a mob cannot be easily swayed. They have to try and put a stop to it now, rather than later, to stand a chance of beating them simply because they have more plentiful resources. (Money)

Take away the money, and I believe legally Monster Cable doesn't have a leg to stand on. Besides, if there was ever going to be confusion between Monster Cable and another company, it would be with my local trash collection service. They deal with garbage all day long.

That's chutzpah.

Which of their trademarks exactly did they think would be diluted? Has anyone seen?

@dartmouth05: I wrote out a whole response to your post, but then saw that What The Geek had said the same thing, only better.

I dunno, I'm split on this one. If they do own the trademark "Monster" (which they do), then they HAVE to defend the trademark or the Trademark Office WILL take it away. It would be like someone calling themselves the "PepsiMiniGolf" - Pepsi would sue 'em just as Monster did.

On the other hand, "Monster" is such a generic word that I feel it shouldn't be trademarked in the first place.. It would be like trademarking the word "love" (Hey, every time you tell your spouse "I love you", you owe me a quarter!).

So I dunno. I'd leave it up to a judge/jury.

@dartmouth05: Because it's David versus Goliath, and if you follow the assorted tales of other companies (even with trademarked names) that have had to go up against Monster in the past, you would see a pattern of frivolous suits and litigation all for the purpose of trying to keep anyone from using 'Monster' in their name, regardless of product or service, application or purpose.

The Mini Golf operation started off small - most companies do - but as they became sucessful they appeared as a blip on the Monster radar. Now it's either they pay $250,000 in legal fees to fight this, let it go and pay Monster Cable for the rights to a name they have already been using which hasn't and shouldn't be confused with audio / visual products or agree to this half-assed solution offered by Monster's attorney as a "win/win".

@docrice: This is an attorney's idea of a win/win. Monster gets to come out smelling like a rose because they don't actually keep any of the fees - they all go to a charity that is deemed appropriate by both parties. The Mini Golf people get to continue to operate as they would normally, but they concede to Monster and drop their suit, which is a terrible thing to do.

Where is the loophole saying Monster can still put those people out of business? It's there, but I can't see it. (Yet)

Perchance because how the f*ck can you confuse a cable supplier with a mini-golf franchise?

Monster cable is one of those annoying leech companies that finds business that are doing ok, happen to have "Monster" in the name, and proceed to try and terrify them with legal bills unless they pony up.

Personally I'm debating changing my company name to "Monster" something. They'll see dollar signs, not my uncle that would do the legal work in return for the proceeds of the counter suit which would probably ask for everything, including the bathroom sink.

However, since I've heard about all sue-happy lawyers from Monster cables, I try to spread the words on how crooked this brand become.

I don't approve bullying.

Yep-

Cue Admiral Akbar- It's a trap.

MMG would be admitting infrigement. Monster Cable could change it's tune later, and MMG would be hard pressed to defend itself.

And as a court of competent jurisdiction hopefully set Monster cable up for a fall. Should they win, they make EVERY subsequent case harder for Monster cable to win. Hopefully they ask for a judgment regardless, but at the very least I hope Monster cable leaves them the f*ck alone.

Screw you, Monster. This is hideously unethical and has no basis in law.

@Mxx: Yes they can.

Olive branch, my @ss. More like a cactus stuffed in the backside of golf's company.

Or how about monster realizes just how ridiculous this crusade against anyone who dares utter the word monster. How long will it take them to file suit against me for making this post?

Oh, and if a monster rep happens to read this. I would have never heard of monsterminigolf until this story broke...you are responsible for the dilution of your name...not other non-related businesses.

And they're goofy charities. Not that they're bad charities, but if Monster Mini Golf wants to donate $100(*22) to charity each month they should not need to funnel it through Monster Cable and have them decide who can get it.

Ah, I see - but the $100 is a royalty Monster Mini Golf would pay to use the name, hence saying Monster Cable is right, and could change that royalty rate any time in the future. It's a trap!

@Mxx: Perhaps, but the real reason is that it reinforces the notion that MonsterCable does indeed have trademarks rights over the word "Monster" in other industries.

"McMonsterdonald's"

"Macinmonstertosh"

Etc.

MonsterCable seems to be pretty reasonable. Why is the Consumerist taking up MonsterMiniGolf's side?

wow. I guess Monster cable finally decided that extorting other companies was somehow a better business plan than selling overpriced cables and accessories...how it is better if they aren't making any money out of it with the deal they offered is beyond me, but whatever.