Just don't tell their lawyers that.

I am aware of your concerns regarding the lawsuit that we filed against Monster Mini Golf, a Rhode Island-based company that franchises miniature golf establishments across the U.S. (currently 24 locations). Suffice to say we take this lawsuit very seriously and filed only as a necessary measure to protect our established trademark rights.

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.

We appreciate your viewpoints and hope you will review the attached documents to fully understand the facts before making judgments against myself or my company.

http://www.monstercable.com/monster_truth

Monsterously,
Noel Lee
nlee@monstercable.com

How does this Monster HDMI cable (the 1m (~3ft) $99.95 version):
http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=3831

Differ from this HDMI cable (3ft @ $3.96 from MonoPrice):
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024007&p_id=3871&seq=1&format=2

Will the picture on my 1080p LCD TV look better? Will the sound be better? What -- specifically -- will makes the Monster version of a 3ft HDMI cable $95 better than the MonoPrice cable?

@Rachacha: See, everyone has it wrong.

Monster assumes that since their customer base is dumb enough to pay for overpriced cables, they are also dumb enough to confuse a AV Cable with MiniGolf. I can see how they'd need to protect that. That is if they're calling their customer base dumb.

Hey Monster, you are aren't you?

Now allow me to explain, in a multi-point documentation, how we tactically position ourselves for opportunities to control a market.

@Dooley: Here's what I wrote them:

Hi,

Demographically-speaking, my upper-middle class household owns 3 big screen high-def flatscreen TVs (one plasma and two LCDs), a high-end hp multimedia PC, a PS3, a Wii, DS's and a PSP, several stereos and two reasonably high-end surround sound systems with BOSE speakers. We're slightly early adopter and I do happen to have a Monster Cable-branded HDMI cable which I purchased when I bought my first large flat-screen TV 5 years ago.

However, there are two factors that have played a part in my choosing to no longer purchase Monster Cable-branded products and to warn my friends and family to act likewise:

1. Continued online articles illustrating that Monster Cables are not good value for the money (although for me, an extra $20 per cable is not a deal-breaker if the Monster Cable comes with a comprehensive warranty and guarantee that the cable will work as advertised); and

2. Monster Cable's insistence on irrationally suing every instance of a business with the word "Monster" in its name. Note that I use the term "word", not "name" to describe "Monster" because I consider that term to be a generic word that cannot and should not be trademarked alone as a term. Your use of the term alongside "Cables" clearly limits your rights to protect your name and in my opinion, you are bullying smaller businesses (many of them mom and pop operations and probably all of them in no competition to your line of business) into either changing their names or paying you for the right to use the word. For that reason, I believe that your company is operating in an unethical manner and I am not interested in supporting your business.

The electronic cable industry is not difficult to enter and compete in, and within 5-10 years a more tenacious competitor will likely supercede you (witness such companies as Creative Labs' fall from grace). Given that inevitability, it seems strange that you would so strongly pursue these lawsuits when each one certainly causes further erosion of consumer goodwill towards your brand. I can't believe that the income generated from licensing the name is even sufficient to pay for the legal fees, but possibly there's a lawyer relative of the owners of Monster Cable that needs the work.

Please let me know if you decide to stop this repulsive behavior as I would be glad to become a Monster Cable customer once again should that happen.

[www.monstercable.com]

So that's why the cables are so fracking expensive.

Dear Mr. Lee,

As an amateur guitarist for over 20 years, and a professional sound technician for over a decade, of course I realize your company's leadership in the audio cable market. It was Monster Cable that first made me aware that I may have been using inferior cable when playing my band's most popular songs, and thus negatively impacting the artistic effect I was wishing to make. Thank you for your years of tireless research into the seemingly forgotten science of metallurgy; without it I may have been "Rocking" with Jazz cable. This is clearly an unacceptable practice.

I am writing you today to inquire about employment opportunities within your company. As a musician, audio professional, and avid internet messageboard reader, I hear over and over again about Monster Cable's wrongheaded business strategies. I mean no offense, but clearly you require a "No Man" or what mafia dons refer to as a "Consigliere." I fear you have surrounded yourself with a cadre of business and legal advisers who do not have Monster Cable's best interests at heart. How else to explain the well-publicized and humiliating correspondence in March and April of 2008 between Christopher Passarelli, Esq. of the firm of LaRiviere, Grubman & Payne on your behalf, and Kurt Denke, Founder of Blue Jeans Cable? What other explanation could there be for spending time and money, not to mention trashing your company's goodwill, extorting licensing fees from independent vintage clothing stores? And now a small chain of theme miniature golf course franchises is being threatened by the same team that has repeatedly convinced the general public that Monster Cable is a heartless organization that should inspire contempt and ridicule. I don't believe this is what you spent years of hard work to build.

Furthermore, surely this isn't the legacy you want your children's children to inherit. Remember, the internet's memory is very long. Some day do you want your then 12 year old granddaughter to discover that her beloved Pop-Pop scraped just a few more crumbs onto his plate by harassing strangers, (many of whom weren't even competitors), and driving them out of business with his legal team? How much threat does a miniature golf course or a vintage clothing store pose to the well-being of a multinational audio/video cable company?

Mr. Lee, I have to be honest: I have very little to recommend me as a business adviser when one looks at my resume. But obviously you need a person close by to advise on matters of common sense and morality since it appears you currently have nobody filling this position. In light of this, I can certainly vouch for myself. I have decades of experience advising friends, family, and business associates in matters both personal and professional. I have been consulted repeatedly by those looking to repair damaged relationships, and I think I could bring this experience and expertise to bear in a campaign to convince the audio/video cable buying public that you are not, in fact, a painful boil on the rectum of society.

I can be reached at this email address if you would like to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely,
(my name)

A number of years ago, a Canadian coffee shop named McBeans was sued by McRotten's (a/k/a McDonalds).

McBeans won the case on the argument that even a partial name could be deemed profiting from another company's name as long as the business types were different.

Given that a coffee shop was deemed different than a McDonalds, I cannot see how a minigolf park can be deemed in any way similar to a cable company.

Then again, that was Canada (where the loser pays in such cases) and we are talking about lawsuit-happy Americans (where each side pays their own and the rich win).

@bogart27:
Actually using the name of another company to make money in a similar industry is illegal. Also don't forget that innocent Mike Rowe tried to use the event as a tactic to get $10,000.

Dear Head Monster,

You need a sign outside of your office that says "MARKETING, PUBLIC RELATIONS AND COMEDIC GENIUS AT WORK!", assuming you don't have like 50 already!

I think your hilarious PR stunts are, well, hilarious! It's always great to see a company so dedicated to a running gag like Monster Cables so clearly is. Nobody values the running gag anymore, not even Dane Cook!

I mean really, what other company would ever think of filing a lawsuit against a Mini-Golf company, or the Chicago Bears or Monster.com; ITS BRILLIANTLY ABSURD!

As if anyone has ever tried to hook up their home theatre speakers with a football team made of human beings and not copper wire and rubber and plastic, or tried to plug in their guitar with an entire mini-golf course? I can just see grandpa asking his son "how the hell do I plug this windmill into my HiFi receiver, FDR's about to have his fireside chat!" and his son will have to explain that he accidentally bought a mini-golf course and not simple RCA cables and that FDR been's both out of office and dead for quite some time and everyone will grin and shrug and his grandkid will say "Oh, grandpa must be off his meds again" and then the laughter of the studio audience will play us into a commercial break.

Ignore the nay sayers, my friends. This borders on Andy Kaufman brilliance, if you ask me.

Below I've included a list of other persons, places and things you should file suite against:

The Monster Mash (the song AND the dance)
The Monster Squad -- I would suggest you not sue for money, but for the right to say "Monster Cables has nards!"
Monster Trucks (all of them)
Monster Quest -- (seriously, they are never going to find bigfoot and they need an egregious abuse of the justice system to drive that point home!)
Monster (the production company the director and Aileen Wuornos and probably the city of Daytona, Florida)
Monster in my Pocket -- No joke here, in fact, I don't think anyone even remembers this toy.
Frankenstein's Monster (everyone who has played him, especially Boris Karloff !)
The Wikipedia article for the word "Monster" -- [en.wikipedia.org] (i dont exactly know how you sue an article, but go for the gold!)
Monstersofcock.com (They have almost certainly said something about "layin' cable")
Cookie Monster -- you could also attract the support of uppity health nuts and claim he is responsible for childhood obesity in a press release.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- www.venganza.org -- His arms could actually be cable-y appendages!

That's just a starter list, I know there are tons of other possible targets out there. I mean, I googled the word monster and wound up with 152,000,000 results. That's a lot-a lawsuits! I would be happy to come on as a legal adviser and supply you with lists of companies who are clearly and in no way linked to your audio cables or anything even similar to electronics. I mean; I likely have as much legal prowess as your current legal dept.

Another option would be stop paying your colony of easily confused lawyers, saving the company millions and pass the savings on to your gullible customers, but what do I know?

Keep up the good work. The jokes on them, eh?!?!

With all my heart,

Jason

Dear companies of the world: Please stop trademarking words that have existed long before you were a company and then trying to sue everyone around you because they used a word. Basically, we don't want to hear about it if it's not the same freaking name as your company. It's going to work out better in the long run if your company doesn't look like it's run by ***holes. Thank you for your time.

[www.cnn.com]

How do they get away with this in court?! As an impartial (or ignorant) judge, I wouldn't immediately call these actions frivolous. It's in a company's best interest to protect its trademark, because it pays for that trademark and the trademark pays back. There are degrees of asshole-ness, but that's mostly irrelevant to the courts.

But do a simple search of the USPTO for "Monster". There are plenty of registered trademarks of simply "Monster," with varying logos, but mostly are large plaintext. Many are still in use. How can a company sue over its name in unrelated fields when trademarks are still being granted for the name?

By the way, Monster registered "MS" in 1999. Prepare, Microsoft.

@wickedpixel: Thank you.

@opticnrv: In reading your post above, I just figured out how they feel any use of "Monster" is an infringement. I bet all of us when we think of the the very expensive AV cables sold at the Big Box stores thinks of the brand name as "Monster Cable" cables. I believe that the AV company is thinking of them as "Monster" cables, therefore any use of the word "Monster" could lead to confusion by consumers into thinking that all of these other "Monster" products are owned or licensed by the company. Crazy I know, but with this line of thinking their lawsuit makes sense, they need to defend their trademark, even though they know that they will likely lose (and losing would be fine because they simply need to defend their trademark). I guess that is the problem one must face by trademarking a common word, and convincing the USPTO that one can trademark such a common word.

All that said, I still hate Monster Cable products.

Perhaps Time Warner Cable can begin legal action against moster cable for the use of the word "cable".

@Smooooth: Not just Cookie Monster...Don't forget Telly Monster, Harry Monster and the Two-Headed Monster.

I guess they'd better watch out themselves--they may be next!

I think I'm going to ask my GF to use her domestic skills and knit some warm clothing to startup a small business.

We're going to market them as "Monster Cable-Knit Sweaters."

I hope they sell.

Monster cables are so overrated. Radio Shack cheapo cables work just as good.

[disclaimer: the above is an attempt to forestall any Monsterous litigation]

Daniel Graham, PR Monster
dgraham@monstercable.com
Phone: 1-415-840-2024
Cell: 1-415-716-2795
FAX: 1-415-468-4311

Company phone/fax:

Phone: 415 840-2000
Fax: 415 468-0311

they are gonna set up a display using putters as speaker cables and show how they clearly blow monster cable away.

You're saying that never happened? Then what are you talking about?

And when they do, I'll be right there in the courtroom as a witness telling the judge how I NEVER mistook Monster Energy Drinks for monster cables as I sip on a Monster Energy Drink.

You can have my Monster Energy Drink when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

i remember when i worked for circuit city and i met the "head monster"(real name slips my mind), and he gave us some training on monster. That guy was such a tool. The most pathetic part is that everyone who went to the training was so convinced by his little PowerPoint, that they actually believed that Monster had godly cables.
Retail chains like circuit city actually get bonuses for selling Monster, by monster. For instance if they sell enough, a rep will actually come in and help associates sell. And, they will give the store shit for free. =/

I went to high school with Pat Vit - he's a wonderful, caring, hardworking person. I wish him and his company the best in fighting this.

Our protection of our brand is no different then (sic) Apple Computer protecting its "Apple" brand, Virgin protecting its "Virgin" brand or Nike protecting is (sic) "Nike" brand, or Disney protecting its "Disney" brand. In fact, our protection program is similar to what is used by those companies. -- Monster Cable, as reported by pmcpa2.

'Apple' and 'Virgin' are common words. Both of these companies have managed to defend their brand without appearing heartless, opportunistic, and a bully. -- comment by opticnrv.

@opticnrv: Sorry for the repetition, but that's exactly what I came here to say. Why don't Apple and Virgin have reps for this kind of douchebaggery? Yeah, the method that Monster may use to protect their brand may be the same as these other companies, but their inappropriate aggressiveness is not.

Tho', Disney is also way over the line in claiming ownership of centuries-old fairy tales, just because they released their own version of same sometime in the last century.

Is there a snail mail address to complain to?

They forgot to sue Bobby "Boris" Pickett for "Monster Mash" under the "entertainment" category.

So he says there:

"We do confront companies that purposefully infringe our patents and trademarks."

Even if this is the case, how do you prove that? I've always been under the impression with my armchair interpretation of the law that intent is awfully difficult to prove in court, as you basically need it in writing. Libel and Slander come to mind as laws that have a similar difficulty with proving intent.

But, IANAL. If I am wrong, please someone correct me.

Cheers!

Where was that post about how they tried their bullying with the wrong (former lawyer) guy and had to go off and find someone else to intimidate? (I'm sure if search through the myriad Monster posts on here, it won't be hard to find, but I'm lazy).

Monster Mini Golf need only force people to play mini golf to get around this.

Article on Audioholics.com

http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans

Blue Jeans co-founder was also threatened to be sued by Monster on patent infringement. You can see the whole story over there.

He's matching donations up to a certain amount for monster mini-golf's legal fees. He's also donating a portion of his proceeds on certain cables to their (monster mini-golf's) legal fees.

There are still good people in this world.

Have they sued Kraft yet? I do believe they produce Meunster Cheese.

All I've ever and will continue to use.

I am inquiring about some new Monster-brand products. I'd like to know when you will be coming out with a sequel to the movie Monsters Inc., new flavors for Monster Energy Drink, a faster job search engine www.monster.com, and new episodes of the popular children's show involving The Cookie Monster. I'd also like to visit Monster MiniGolf for a few rounds of mini golf.

I would like to thank you for providing all the services I have mentioned above in addition to overpriced audio/video cables. I will continue to be on the lookout for other products and services that bear the name "Monster" and I will associate it with your company.

Cheers!
Charles

I found Monster Cable's 50 trademarks (dead and live) at [tess2.uspto.gov]

Search on "Monster cable" in the owner name field.
I don't see any that Monster MiniGolf is violating.
The MONSTER GAME trademark referenced in their email refers to wireless controllers.

Dear Mr. Lee,

I have just learned of your impending lawsuit against Monster Mini Golf and am appalled at the arrogance of your company. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I for one will never be purchasing Monster cables again and I'm going to make sure everyone I know finds out about this ridiculous act. While you're suing people using the word "monster," don't forget about Monster.com, Disney for the film Monsters Inc., Sesame Street for the Cookie Monster character, and last but most importantly, the Tickle Monster. Should your lawsuit prevail, I hope your house burns down with you inside. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go take a Monster shit.
Sincerely,
Me

[www.monstersofcock.com]

[WARNING: NSFW or KIDS]

I hope to see a new lawsuit soon!

@Derp:

Monster Cables are not overpriced.... it is those greedy retailers that don't give a big discount on Monster Cables which are at fault.

@Oranges w/ Cheese:

Very well written. A+

@Oranges w/ Cheese: I told them something very similar, except not as eloquent (translation: more profanities)

*Though they might not understand the joke and use it as legal fodder.

Monster's response is a load of b.s.

So they admit they are suing the other guys because the golf company is using the word Monster?

I have news for Mr. Lee and his 'small family business' goons. You shouldn't have chosen a generic word for your company name.

If people could trademark everyday words then I'd be rich. I'd own a company called Water, one called Food, one called Beef, etc.

Monster Crap. That's all they are.

As we've said before, go to Monoprice.com and you won't get ripped off. $100 for a gold plated HDMI cable? How about $6? I'd bet Monoprice is seeing a jump in sales.

o whom it may concern-

I have remained silent regarding Monster-related lawsuits in the past, but the latest news regarding Monster's trademark litigation has me a bit concerned.

The name "Monster" seems to be the only thing Monster Cable and Monster Mini-Golf have in common. I have read that Monster Cable has established trademark rights in the areas of "clothing, food products, furniture, gaming, recreational services, sporting goods, sporting events, entertainment, automotive products, just to name a few.". I also have seen other products in the market, such as Monster energy drink, Monster.com job searches and public-access television Monster Movie Marathons. I don't think you have any relation to those products but the absence of lawsuits regarding your company and theirs is... Interesting.

Is it because you do not see those companies as infringing on your copyrights? The oublic perception seems to be that those other companies have the capacity and resources to mount a costly defense.

I can certainly appreciate the concern you obviously have in protecting the Monster brand against moving into generic usage. In these economically uncertain times, I would hope you see the possibility of allowing this litigation to become a Pyrrhic victory for your product. We consumers certainly know how to distinguish inferior products from Shinola... Even as that polish has long departed the shoe-care shelves. It's interesting to note that even "Shinola" is an invented noun.

The generic noun "monster" has existed for much longer than your company, and the idea that any company also using that noun will be sued is distasteful to many consumers, including myself. I can't endorse any company that apparently uses lexicon-squatting as a business strategy any more than I like misspelling a website and falling prey to a cyber-squatter. "Monster" by itself is not equal to "Kodak", "Xerox" or "Kleenex" or any other invented name.

I simply can't understand why Monster Cables, a producer of home entertainment connectivity products, would be so aggressively litigious against a mini-golf course... I don't use RCA cables to use a putter, I don't need AC power-filtering to swing a club, and I don't need a score-card to connect my TV to my home-entertainment center. The only conclusion I can logically draw is that "Monster Cables" must be using litigation to improve its income while the core business of producing electronic components is shrinking in a stressed economy.

Yes, Apple, Disney, Virgin and Nike and even Monster.com work very hard to defend their copyrights. On that front, Apple lost lawsuits against the Beatles' production company (which it even says it stole the name from as an homage) , and all five companies have created graphic logos that distinguish their products from generic usage. I cannot see how a mini-golf company with a completely different graphic logo has any bearing on Monster Cables. It has not attempted to copy the look or feel of your product. Even Toho studios, the creators of "Godzilla", have not sued Mozilla, even though there is even a reptile in Mozilla's logo.

Because of Monster Cables choice to continue to pursue this type of legal activity, I simply can't continue to endorse your product to my friends or family, nor will I be making such purchases for myself. I know the money they would spend would go toward pursuing companies for using a single public-domain noun. That legal activity has sucessfully undone the efforts you have made to contact me through expensive advertising campaigns. I know your company's name and I will avoid purchasing your products until Monster Cables publicly and privately disavows itself of the overzealous copyright protection it is currently engaged in.

In short, we consumers are asking that Monster pour their energies into developing better quality products and move away from lawsuits that damage the name you are working to protect.

Although I dislike both Microsoft and Metallica, it is important to note that these two entities are both very successful and do produce some good items. Monster is more like "The Electric Slide" of cables.

@pmcpa2: The founder "started our company in his parent's garage 30 years ago with a dream to build, create and innovative high quality products that consumers love - that is still our goal."

So when are you going to return to THAT business model?

Great minds...

Granted, it's all semantics, but I think it's a valid point.

Ben, could you post their phone numbers?

As for buying their overpriced products, go to Monoprice.com.

Same quality, 1/10th the price, and you're not subsidizing frivolous lawsuits that screw consumers in the long run.

Perfect. Let's all call him, TOLL FREE, and ask him what exactly his company has to do with minigolf. In all sincerity.

That letter is very disturbing. It appears Monster is in the business of trademarking names just to sue unsuspecting violators.

this is the same thing Nissan Motors is doing to a guy named Nissan! [www.nissan.com]

http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/interview_kurt_denke_man_who_shut_monster_cable_up

@unobservant:

Yeah by the end of the day they will probably have more protest emails saying "I'll never buy another Monster cable again" than they have had sales over the lifetime of the company.

Dear Sir:

I was very disappointed to learn that you are suing another company purely on their use of the word "Monster" in their name based on your frivolous belief that they are somehow infringing on your trademarks.
I understand that you have various trademarks in many industries, which rightly allows your company to expand in any direction it sees fit. However, though you have a trademark for "Monster Game" as your form email from truth@monstercable.com purports, I do not believe that you should be harping on this company for this reason.

Though I understand your trademark is meant, most likely, to apply to gaming systems (as your primary business is audio / video cables, etc), I do not understand how the trademark could possibly be confused with "Monster Mini-Golf"; especially considering that the golf course in question uses monsters as its main theme (Monsters meaning mummies, dragons, etc).

Please allow me to elaborate on my train of thought:
I understand that your company wishes for the word "Monster", when used in common parlence, to be synonymous with high quality audio and video cables, and nothing else. However, I'm sure that adding "golf" or "mini-golf" on the end clearly demonstrates that this "Monster" is not referring to anything to do with audio or video cables, but with a fun family past-time. I see very very little chance, as a consumer, of telling my friend "We're going to Monster golf" and having them appear confused when we arrive and your products are inexplicably not available. I DO NOT see this as a valid confusion.

I am sure that your company is also aware that it is fairly impossible to trademark a word commonly found in the dictionary, of which Monster is one.

Though they may be a franchised business, Monster Mini Golf has considerably fewer resources than a nationally recognized brand such as yourselves, and thus this law suit puts them at a disadvantage. Though it would be easier, and far cheaper, for them to acquiesce to your demands, I for one am glad to see them fighting back against a corporate bully.

As a customer, now having realized how you and your lawyers operate in regards to your trademarks, I will henceforth discontinue any purchases of your products. In addition, I'm going to notify anyone and everyone that I can how you operate. It will be up to them to make a decision as a customer, but at least they will know the truth.

Thank you very kindly,

Can they not see how these actions, along with a reputation for being horribly overpriced, might sour the public's opinion of them?

Incidentally, I was buying an auxiliary cable the other night and was almost to the checkout when I saw it was a Monster brand cable. I put it back and bought one 5 dollars less, and that was before this story broke.

For the cost, they're junk. You can get monoprice cables for 1/10th or 1/20th of the price of the exact same quality.

Maybe they could go after Bela Lugosi's estate.

[www.bluejeanscable.com]

Sorry, I only knew about this mini-golf place. Suing everyone with the "monster" in the title...@#$@$ THEM.

There is limited, at best, possibility of confusion between Monster Mini-Golf and Monster Audio/Visual cables. You have to be blind deaf mute to make that kind of flub up. Then again, I can't see a blind deaf mute playing a round of mini golf or buying a set of Monster cables.

Clearly a form letter, I responded to thuth@monstercable.com, and the message bounced!

@Dooley:

Not junk, but not any better for the price than other cheaper cables.

Monster cables are not junk. Overpriced? Yes. Better in quality than other cables? Probably not. Haveing said that, this lawsuit is stupid.

And by the way, the whole time I watched "Monsters, Inc" all I thought was Monster Cable. Or maybe I was thinking Monster Cable because the picture quality was ass. Who knows.

Thank you for your email and your concern about this matter.

There are a lot of rumors, misinformation and false accusations on the web about Monster Cable and our trademark and brand protection efforts. We have been wrongfully accused of suing any company using the "Monster" name, and as being a "corporate bully." We are disappointed indeed to see misinformation out there since it is so far from the truth.

Anyone who knows our company, knows that we are not that kind of company.

Before you form any negative impressions of our company or how we have directed it, please allow me to straighten out some of the misconceptions.

1) Monster Mini Golf is using and has attempted to register several "Monster" trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Their filings include MONSTER, MONSTER MINI GOLF, MONSTER FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT CENTER and MONSTR MINI GOLF. Their trademark use infringes our prior established trademark rights. Most specifically, we are protecting our rights for our trademarks MONSTER GAME and MONSTER in the area of recreational entertainment, which is one of the trademark classes established by the USPTO.

2) Monster Mini Golf is not a small "mom and pop" shop, but a "limited liability company" selling Monster Mini golf franchises across the nation. Monster Mini Golf charges franchise and set-up fees upwards of $300,000. This is a company that is making money by licensing our "Monster" brand. We don't target small businesses. We don't focus on the size of a company before suing them. We focus on whether or not their activity is (or has the chance to) harm our company's trademarks or confuse our customers.

3) We are not a corporate giant. We are still a family company, owned and run by our founder, Noel Lee. He started our company in his parent's garage 30 years ago with a dream to build, create and innovative high quality products that consumers love - that is still our goal. We do not seek to profit off of lawsuits. In fact, they are very costly. We sue to protect our intellectual property from infringement, not to make money. Unfortunately, this is a necessary cost doing of business when you are a successful industry leader and you have a popular and well known consumer brand.

4) Most people think of us as a cable company. However, our business interests are much more diverse then most realize. In addition, Monster owns trademark rights well beyond merely cable, audio, or video products. It has registered and common law trademarks for Monster in various classes of goods, including clothing, food products, furniture, gaming, recreational services, sporting goods, sporting events, entertainment, automotive products, just to name a few. Additionally, some people do not realize that we own a range of "Monster" marks beyond simply "Monster Cable." We own registered marks for "Monster" (single word) along with many other marks such as "Monster Game" and "Monster Music."

5) We began using the Monster brand over 30 years ago. Our use of the Monster brand pre-dates most other uses in the areas of business in which we are involved. In fact, you can see a list of our various "Monster" marks and types of goods going outside merely cable at the end of this letter.

6) We are not a "corporate bully" that uses litigation against companies. We do confront companies that purposefully infringe our patents and trademarks. Our intellectual property protection program is reasonable and necessary to protect our intellectual property from misuse by others. We have invested an extraordinary amount of time, money and effort over the last 30 years to innovate new products and designs, and build the Monster brand. It is wrong for companies to leverage our hard work and investment for their own gain. It is unfortunate that so many companies try to build their businesses by copying other companies' innovations and brands - rather than spending the time, effort, and money to innovate on their own. As noted in the link cited directly below, "companies who tolerate infringing uses of their mark risk losing all their rights in the mark if a third party challenger claims the company abandoned their mark by not enforcing it. Thus, companies cannot pick and choose against whom they are going to enforce their mark." [www.marklaw.com] This is an unfortunate aspect of the trademark laws in the U.S., that those who have famous brands must contend with.

7) Monster has a trademark protection program against others who create a likelihood of confusion with its trademarks. Contrary to false rumors, Monster does not claim and never has claimed a monopoly on the use of the term "Monster." Nor do we think we own the word generic word "Monster." However, we do have valuable trademark rights to the brand Monster. Our protection of our brand is no different then Apple Computer protecting its "Apple" brand, Virgin protecting its "Virgin" brand or Nike protecting is "Nike" brand, or Disney protecting its "Disney" brand. In fact, our protection program is similar to what is used by those companies. Enforcement actions are taken generally when others use a trademark including the term "Monster" for goods or services in similar market segments or trade channels in which Monster Cable owns prior rights. To understand the likelihood of confusion standard better (and note that both parties here use MONSTER (single word) in participatory recreational entertainment), see [www.marklaw.com]

8) We do not file a lawsuit without having a compelling legal and business reason to do so, and only after giving the infringing party ample warning and sufficient opportunity to resolve the matter on reasonable terms. A lawsuit is a last resort option - in our opinion. We prefer to work things out with people. Unfortunately, that is not always possible. In any event, we have not filed anything remotely close to 400 trademark infringement lawsuits - this simply untrue. In the case of Monster Mini Golf, we have offered a very fair and reasonable offer that will allow the company to continue using our trademark under a license.

9) We dislike frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, and would never engage in a lawsuit that was frivolous or without merit. They are a waste of the public's money, and the time of the parties involved. In fact, the courts do not allow "frivolous" lawsuits to proceed. The courts have procedural safeguards to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, as well as penalties (like Rule 11) that can be levied against attorneys and parties who bring such suits. We have never been accused by a court of filing frivolous lawsuits.

There are tens of millions of Monster fans who love our company and love our products. Our company and employees' passion and unrelenting drive to innovate and create the highest quality products is well known in the industry and with consumers. Where most companies find out how to take quality out of something to reduce costs, we find how we can "improve" products and make them the best of class. That's why our customers love Monster products.

I hope this information helps. We value you as a customer, and hope you stay with us. We feel that our product quality and innovation is second to none, and would like for you to continue to enjoy your music and video in the best way possible.

If you would like to talk with me about this, or if this email does not answer your questions, please email me at truth@monstercable.com, or feel free to call me by phone.

Sincerely,

David Tognotti

Vice President and General Counsel

Direct: 415-840-2109

Toll Free: 877-800-8989 x2109

How long until Jim Henson's estate is sued for trademark infringement?

I mean, seriously, the Cookie Monster? I know we're all tired of Sesame Street blatantly flaunting copyright law.

Maybe they would have a case if they charged $50 a round.

What about Monster Energy Drinks? Or the Cookie Monster?

Screw these bastards and their overpriced cables.

Oy Vey... Monster Cables are junk to begin with, and now they're trying to be the Microsoft of cables?