var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Dooley
December 10, 2008 9:44 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

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

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
mariospants
December 11, 2008 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tastybytes
December 11, 2008 2:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dooley: Don't forget apple doing the same thing, they are worse than Microsoft, even going so far to try to sue Apple records.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
racermd
December 11, 2008 4:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tastybytes:
Apple Records returned the favor when Apple Computer opened their iTunes store, which is a legitimate issue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nicless
December 11, 2008 12:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dooley: Yeah, I totally remember that time Microsoft sued that company for using Micro in their name...

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bogart27
December 11, 2008 4:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nicless: Does anyone else remember when they sued MikeRoweSoft.com?

[www.cnn.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
woogychuck
December 11, 2008 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
December 10, 2008 11:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dooley: @VioletPheonix:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Derp
December 10, 2008 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dooley:


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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR
December 11, 2008 12:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Derp: www.knukonceptz.com

All I've ever and will continue to use.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lpranal
December 10, 2008 10:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nobody ruins monster cable's reputation except monster cable!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ninja007
December 10, 2008 10:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lpranal: Cables, coathangers, same difference

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
homerjay- Smiling politely
December 10, 2008 9:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Don't I then run the risk of getting sued for unsolicited email?
Hey, its freakin' monster. They'll come up with ANY reason to sue- like the RIAA but more evil.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
godlyfrog
December 11, 2008 2:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@homerjay- Smiling politely: I just hope that no one with the word \"monster\" in their email address emails them, or we'll be reading about another lawsuit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
quixiotic
December 11, 2008 12:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@godlyfrog: I'd register a new gmail JUST for that...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Triterion
December 10, 2008 10:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@homerjay- Smiling politely: Oh I wish you could sue for unsolicited email, that'd be the day. They probably go all into the junk mail box anyway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AbsoluteIrrelevance
December 10, 2008 11:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Triterion: They'll be more evil than the RIAA when they start forcing poor college kids to stop their education to pay court costs.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
exkon
December 10, 2008 9:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is there a reason these assholes are suing a small family owned business?

What about Monster Energy Drinks? Or the Cookie Monster?

Screw these bastards and their overpriced cables.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
eelmonger
December 10, 2008 11:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@exkon: These guys better not be the reason \"Monster House\" is no longer on the air. That was the only home improvement show I could stand to watch...including \"Home Improvement.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
December 11, 2008 5:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@eelmonger: You mentioned Monster House -- I did find an article from 2004 that claimed the show Monster Garage was once a target of Monster cable's lawsuits.
[www.sfgate.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bastion72
December 10, 2008 11:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@eelmonger: A short google search turned this up: Monster.com., 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.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nursetim
December 10, 2008 11:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bastion72:
Sounds like you found their list of who they plan to sue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kyle4
December 12, 2008 4:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nursetim: Actually, that's who they already have tried to sue. Boo Monster Cable. From now on, every time we use the word Monster we'll have to put a copyright symbol next to it and pay a fee.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
December 11, 2008 5:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nursetim: That's the list of who they *did* sue!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lightaugust
December 11, 2008 12:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nursetim: @RecordStoreToughGuy: I think there's a corollary to that in that, if we didn't already have such a negative opinion of their business, we'd be more tolerant of their legal pursuits. I'm sure there are companies I like better who do this shit all the time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
December 10, 2008 9:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@exkon: Where have you been? They've sued all the high profile companies, including the employment website Monster.com. Now they're moving on to the smaller players.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nsv
December 10, 2008 10:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent: And here I was thinking I'd like to see them go after monster.com. Drat.

Maybe they could go after Bela Lugosi's estate.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
exkon
December 10, 2008 10:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InfiniTrent:

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
lvhotrain
December 10, 2008 9:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
December 11, 2008 12:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lvhotrain: LOL More like 99 or 199 dollars a round.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
thewriteguy
December 10, 2008 9:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Somebody should start a \"Monster Coat Hangers\" business, just to piss Monster Cable off even more.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 11, 2008 8:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thewriteguy: Damnit, i was so totaly going to start a company and name it that selling \"monster hangers\" and put disclaimers on the wrap showing that while it gives the same quality reception it should not be used with your sterio

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Smooooth
December 10, 2008 9:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
December 11, 2008 2:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catnapped
December 11, 2008 2:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: Isn't there a \"Monster In My Pocket\" toy?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pmcpa2
December 10, 2008 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

already did this... here's the response from truth@monstercable.com:

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

Reply
22 replies
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
December 12, 2008 11:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: \"We dislike frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, and would never engage in a lawsuit that was frivolous or without merit\"

Just don't tell their lawyers that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 11, 2008 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You seem to have been misinformed. We are not a litigious corporate bully.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CapitalC
December 11, 2008 8:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: \"We do not seek to profit off of lawsuits. In fact, they are very costly.\"

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 11, 2008 7:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The word 'monster' is a common noun, how can this be infringement? Can someone trademark 'scary', or 'big' and then sue anyone that has one of those words in their company name? What if somsone names their kid Monster, will they get sued? Come on this is ludicrous, fscking monster cable has lost the respect of countless people with this frivolous nonsense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 11, 2008 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's the email I sent a week or so ago:

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)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
December 11, 2008 8:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: i lol'd at the \"Monster Mini Golf is not a family company...\" shortly followed by \"we are a family company\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SinisterMatt
December 11, 2008 2:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2:

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!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RedwoodFlyer
December 11, 2008 5:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SinisterMatt: No kidding..it's hard for someone to purposefully infringe anything when they were around before the \"anything\" that was being infringed upon!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KyleOrton
December 11, 2008 1:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: Mentioning \"participatory\" recreational something (blah blah) makes me think of Seinfeld's \"Involuntary Luge\" routine.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
opticnrv
December 11, 2008 12:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: 1) Monster Mini Golf named their company first…if you are the company you claim to be in this misleading letter, you'd back off.
2) Monster Mini Golf does not have franchises 'across the nation', rather they are limited to a small area of the country. I have seen your products sold in countries as far away as Australia. $300k is a reasonable set-up fee. True they are making money. They are a company. They are not doing this by licensing YOUR Monster brand, but rather the Monster Mini Golf brand. The fact that your are claiming the word 'monster' as your recognizable brand is laughable, truly, truly laughable, and demonstrates your tenuous hold on reality, and further support the fact that your thought processes revolve primarily within the litigation arena.
3) How can you claim you are 'not a corporate giant' and 'a successful industry leader' within the same point? I don't care how your company started, I'm sure, without even checking public records, that Noel Lee owns at least 5 properties. Tabasco is a family owned company…so what? It still has a large stable of corporate bulldog lawyers to force and bully their way through the courts. Your claims are not fooling anyone.
4) Wow, pretty impressive for a 'family company'. This is exactly the point of my Email. You are infringing into areas where companies of varying sizes who utilize the name 'Monster' have already established their market. If you are the company you claim to be, respect the reality of the situation, and choose an unused name to establish your presence instead of running over smaller less-litigious minded companies. You chose a rather over used word, 'Monster' as the name of your company…deal with the consequences in a respectful manner instead of using the profits from your marked up merchandise and the current home theatre trend to put hard working Americans out of business.
5) If this is true, why did you not sue these companies when they started instead of now, when you have all this money to throw at the problem? I'm 42. When I was 12, I never heard of a company named 'Monster'. You've only been successful in the cable industry, and even then, I wasn't aware of your brand until 2003.
6) Deal with it, everyone else does in a free market economy. You don't see companies trying to shove a brand name called 'football' down consumer's throats. If other companies have found ways to solve this problem without portraying themselves as heartless corporate bullies, why can't you? You chose to play in this arena. Don't start crying about the rules once you've become successful.
7) 'Apple' and 'Virgin' are common words. Both of these companies have managed to defend their brand without appearing heartless, opportunistic, and a bully. Since 'Nike' and 'Disney' are unique names, I don't believe they are comparable to your current situation.
8) If not 400 lawsuits, how many? How many this year? How many over the last 5 years? Who is deciding whether your offer is 'fair and reasonable'? What is the profit margin in their industry? How much of that margin are you requesting? If these claims are true, you should have no problem presenting this information.
9) Use of the term frivolous is objective, and up to the decision of the court. Are you claiming the courts are never biased? Or that the amount of money a person or company spends on legal resources has no effect on the outcome of a case?
David Tognotti, you're not fooling any reader of the Consumerist Website.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
December 11, 2008 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
EricLecarde
December 11, 2008 9:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrsLopsided
December 11, 2008 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wickedpixel
December 11, 2008 12:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: one tenet of trademark law is that the mark has to be actively used in commerce. They can trademark Monster-anything until they're blue in the face but if they're not using it they have no legal leg to stand on trying to enforce it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drkkgt
December 11, 2008 12:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: So wait - their vice president is also a lawyer that may explain a lot. Also did you read this line on their site?
In fact, the name Monster Cable is so synonymous with high quality and high performance, customers often assume that any cable they purchase in reputable stores would be Monster even though there are other cable brands
ummm - mighty big head there, some might say it's a monster.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
femaleconsumerist
December 11, 2008 12:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: I love the defense of \"THEY'RE not a family company, WE are\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dorianh49
December 10, 2008 11:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mmcnary
December 10, 2008 11:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: What the letter doesn't say is that the reason they hold so many trademarks, is because they have systematically sued all of the original owners of those marks, and as part of the settlement, licensed the name BACK to the originator, often for a percentage of the profits of the company. If that's not being a bully, then I guess we need a new wiki definition...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
December 10, 2008 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: They are like a patent shop that buys up patents that they have no interest in using just so they can wait it out and sue future infringers that had no idea the previous patent even existed.
They trademark monster in areas that have nothing to do with their business and then sue anyone who uses the name in those areas. And people get sucked in because they have no idea Monster has a current trademark in something like gaming, because their company has nothing to do with gaming or has never advertised that they did.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
December 10, 2008 10:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: Well, that's a right pretty speech, but they still haven't explained why Monster Cable has a Mini Golf trademark, or exactly how one could confuse overpriced audio cables with a Disney Film or Energy Drink. The record also clearly shows that Monster's litigation department can be a little trigger happy, as Blue Jean cable's CEO can attest.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheBusDriver
December 10, 2008 10:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: Ok, so they have registered names for \"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.\" - WHAT do they use them for? Nothing that I am aware of. I think they are doing that to stop people that had not had the foresight (or money) to register all those options...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
unobservant
December 10, 2008 10:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: Okay. So if Monster Mini Golf abandons their trademark filing for the single word \"Monster,\" there's no problem. Right? Right...? Because that's the ONLY valid point I gleaned from that wordy pile o' crap.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
qcgallus
December 10, 2008 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well I fired off an email saying that they had lost me as a customer. I think I bought a monster cable about 10 years ago, and I will not again, therefore they have lost me as a customer. Keeping my fingers crossed that I don't get sued!

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Derp
December 10, 2008 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Corporate-Shill
December 10, 2008 11:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 10, 2008 10:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Derp: \"Monster cables are not junk\"

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
pmcpa2
December 10, 2008 9:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They then go onto list 100's of other companies with monster in their name. It's an attempt at throwing so much information at you to shut you up. They play innocent and clam that they are the ones being extorted!

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

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
December 11, 2008 8:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa2: not to nitpick, but that email came from truth@monstercable

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★
December 10, 2008 9:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I had to check the BestBuy flyer b/c someone was going there and asked me if I needed anything. I saw a 6 foot HDMI Monster cable ON SALE for $199.00. It should come bundled with a 19 inch monitor for that price. Losers.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
BrianDaBrain
December 10, 2008 9:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, corporate greed at it's best right here. There's no reason for this other than just plain douchebaggery. I'll send an email... though it will be interesting to see what Monster MiniGolf has planned for CES.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Courteous_Gentleman
December 10, 2008 9:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I for one support the company's decision to sue the mini-golf impostors, as I, as a consumer, was confused and mislead into thinking I was buying a state-of-the-art hi-def connection cable, but instead found myself playing a round of miniature golf.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Bahnburner
December 10, 2008 9:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Dear Monster: Good luck making case that your (overpriced crap) electronic cable business (\"entertainment\" myass) is being materially harmed by a frickin Go-kart track.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TheFlamingoKing
December 10, 2008 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Or, you could just \"never buy a Monster Cable again and you will tell everyone you know to never buy a Monster Cable\" not because they're abusing trademark law but because you care enough about everyone you know to prevent them from spending 300 - 500% markup on some copper wire.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
deweydecimated
December 10, 2008 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can think of a way to combine Monster Cable and some golf clubs, but I'm sure Mr. Lee wouldn't like it.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
m4ximusprim3
December 10, 2008 11:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@deweydecimated: Does it involve inserting them both in his rectum and then putting the whole shebang in a trash compactor? Because I had that same idea!

Great minds...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
tmlfan81
December 10, 2008 10:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.


Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
PSUSkier
December 10, 2008 10:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

www.monoprice.com ftw

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
VioletPheonix
December 10, 2008 10:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dooley: No, the Metalica of cables.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ninja007
December 10, 2008 10:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

why aren't comments working?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
valarmorghulis
December 10, 2008 10:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

[www.bluejeanscable.com]

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 11, 2008 12:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@valarmorghulis: @valarmorghulis:

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
unobservant
December 10, 2008 10:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Isn't it an empty threat if you were smart enough to have never been a customer in the first place?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
ChibaCityCowboy
December 10, 2008 10:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
AxleGrease
December 10, 2008 10:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

hey I bet you could bend those golf clubs and turn them into wires for you home theater system and it would still sound better than Monster

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
December 10, 2008 10:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's what I wrote them:

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,

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
alexcassidy
December 10, 2008 11:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Ixnayer
December 10, 2008 10:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dumblonde
December 11, 2008 1:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ixnayer: I found this really interesting. These big companies overwhelm you with discoveries and summary judgments in district court and by the time you can even think of appealing you are out of resources. But because Nissan Computer appealed they essentially won their case.
If Monster Mini Golf can hold out for a couple of years they might get judgment in their favor in Circuit Court.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
December 10, 2008 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@undefined: @TheBusDriver: That's what I want to know. It does seem a little shady that they have all these trademarks for products that are not directly related to their industry. Did they think at maybe some point they might want to branch out into Delicious Cake, perhaps? Maybe if this goes to trial they'll be forced to answer those questions...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
m4ximusprim3
December 10, 2008 11:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy: Also, I think when you have \"tens of millions of customers\", you cease to be a \"family company\" and begin to be a \"corporate giant\".

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
speedwell (!)
December 10, 2008 10:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
unobservant
December 10, 2008 11:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@speedwell: Or show up at their offices with small children who will cry on command when they are told that they won't be getting any minigolf action.*

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AmericaTheBrave
December 10, 2008 11:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Monster's coward company disabled their email accounts.

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 10, 2008 11:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's the letter I just sent in:

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AmericaTheBrave
December 10, 2008 11:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@undefined: @pmcpa2:

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
December 11, 2008 12:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've found a company that is using the Monster name, and could easily be confused Monster Cables:

[www.monstersofcock.com]

[WARNING: NSFW or KIDS]

I hope to see a new lawsuit soon!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dr Steve Brule
December 11, 2008 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@humphrmi: I'd like to see Monster Cable sue these guys, just to give me a reason to send Mr. Lee and Co. a few double-sided dildos in a sign of protest.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 11, 2008 12:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hope they read all emails. Here's what I wrote:

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

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Cranky Customer
December 11, 2008 12:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Complaining to these people (!) is going to be useless, as this is their business model. It's their very own cottage industry..
.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Chols
December 11, 2008 12:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

To whom it may concern:

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

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
KStrike155
December 11, 2008 11:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chols: Win. Pure win. I hope you actually sent that.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Dooley
December 11, 2008 12:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MsAnthropy
December 11, 2008 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What fucking scumbag arseholes they are. Monster (Cable), that is.

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).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
engfish
December 11, 2008 1:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Based on the Monster(TM) litigation model:
1) The Munsters, claimed by the cable manufacturing company to be \"entertainment,\" will refuse to succumb to litigation and never air on, er, cable TV again (thank God);
2) Virgin(TM) will go after Burger King (in its latest \"burgervirgin\" campaign) and then abstaining Christian non-marrieds; and
3) the estate of Mary W. Shelley is in imminent danger.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
eric4ok
December 11, 2008 3:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
KauaiGuy808
December 11, 2008 3:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

After reading about this lawsuit i will make it my job in life to get people to stay away from Monster Cables! Their just big mean bullies.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 11, 2008 4:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

As these are both \"Family companies\" perhaps they can solve their problems in the family court. Seeing as Monster Cables appears to be the Man, and Monster mini golf appear to be the defenseless woman, perhaps the judge will find for Monster Mini-golf and Monster cables will have to pay alimoney and give them half the house. Monster mini-golf should also take custody of the children, which in this case would be all of the spin off companies.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Cliff_Donner
December 11, 2008 4:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 11, 2008 4:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why not email best buy and threatin them as well. I would think that the largest reseller of monster crap has a lot of say so, since we all were taught that you are who you hang around with. After all there are plenty of overpriced cables brands with fancy packaging ready to take monsters shelf space.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
hardtoremember
December 11, 2008 4:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Three emails from three different accounts. I won't buy their products but I am responsible for a lot of people and business' electronics.
I will be sure none of them even consider Monster Cable in the future.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
opticnrv
December 11, 2008 5:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Know matter how you want to dress this situation up…at the very least, Monster cable is guilty of 'brand' squatting. They've filed a bunch of claims to names without yet having established their 'brand' in those fields.
Maybe they could garner some good PR by reducing the profit margin on their primary product line. It's obvious to the majority of consumers that their cables are overpriced. This is probably the reason most people are willing to think the worst of them at the first sign of unethical behavior.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
TangDrinker
December 11, 2008 5:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The technical term for companies like this is \"Troll.\" as in, Trademark Troll. You can file complaints with the USPTO's public accountability office, but I wouldn't bother until the new administration takes over.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Sorshha
December 11, 2008 6:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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. =/

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jecowa
December 11, 2008 7:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I thought companies had to sue everyone using their name in order to protect their brand.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
December 11, 2008 7:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm REALLY surprised they haven't sued Hansen Natural Corporation for Monster Energy. Monster is very popular with a dozen+ flavors and sponsorship at tons of sporting events.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
KStrike155
December 11, 2008 11:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aaron8301: With the crap they put in those drinks, you might be having it pried from your cold, dead hands sooner than you think.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
homerjay- Smiling politely
December 11, 2008 12:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"How do you sleep at night?\"
\"On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful women.\"
\"Just asking.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
punkrawka
December 11, 2008 12:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Have they asked for royalties whenever \"Monster Mash\" gets radio play? Now THAT would be a business model.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kickarse
December 11, 2008 12:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh man, I was hoping for a Monster Mini-Golf with gold plated clubs and wool instead of fake grass. Because it actually makes it better!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
IsaiahHaemarrhoid
December 11, 2008 12:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Can you imagine all the orchards that would be out of business if Apple sued them all, for the use of 'Apple' in their name....?'Monster' mini golf is completely out of the scope of the market that Monster Cable's is going for.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
booksy
December 11, 2008 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Loser pay laws would stop this silly crap

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JohnDeere
December 11, 2008 1:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese
December 11, 2008 1:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Did anyone email their PR Monster? I'm a PF flak meself...it might be worth the effort. Please note: this is publicly available information posted in press releases available for viewing on the Monster website. I did not go and get confidential information or anything else that other interested parties couldn't have found on their own.

[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

Reply
1 replies
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 11, 2008 1:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What corporate BS. Why don't they sue the estate of Forrest Ackerman for Famous Monsters of Filmland? Or stop showings of the original Frankenstein bc the villagers are shouting \"MONSTER\" at Boris Karloff?

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HotTubber
December 11, 2008 1:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

FYI - I sent an email to both nlee@monstercable.com and theheadmonster@monstercable.com. nlee went through but theheadmonster bounced with the message \"User unknown\".

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Daveinva
December 11, 2008 2:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
catnapped
December 11, 2008 2:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Doesn't Hardees have a Monster Burger (or something like that).

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

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
wolimits
December 11, 2008 2:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
nightlawyer
December 11, 2008 3:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wickedpixel: Thank you.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chrisjames
December 11, 2008 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"IT HAS TO SAY MONSTER CABLE TO BE MONSTER CABLE\" -USPTO Search \"Monster Cable\" Result 6 (aka. self-fulfilling prophecy?)

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Pandrogas
December 11, 2008 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Voyou_Charmant
December 11, 2008 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My wanted to let monster know that I \"get\" it.

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

Reply
1 replies
","","","
\"user-pic\"
P_Smith
December 11, 2008 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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).

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
brodie7838
December 11, 2008 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Monster Cables has an interesting webpage up in response to this lawsuit. It is an interesting view from their side of things.

[www.monstercable.com]

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 11, 2008 10:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Can someone please tell me...

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?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 12, 2008 1:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Their entire franchise is built on taking advantage of the naive so I wouldn't expect anything less from them. I will, though, go out of my way now to steer others away from them if that helps!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 12, 2008 1:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

On Behalf of Noel Lee, the founder of Monster Cable.

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
shiznannigan
December 12, 2008 7:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Next time they lose in court, the judge just needs to go ahead and make them change their name to a random jumble of letters.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
nojok3
December 12, 2008 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They need to defend the trademark. If not, in the future a court could point to this company and say that they didn't defend the name and basically made it open territory.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
alhypo
December 12, 2008 10:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Eh, I'm starting to think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. Monster Mini-Golf is indeed a franchise, not the one individually owned, \"Mom-and-Pop\", monster-themed mini-golf establishment that I was lead to believe it is. These sort of trademark territory disputes happen all the time in the business world. I don't think this is the David and Goliath story everyone wants it to be. I suspect we are all being taken for a ride by the Monster Mini-Golf people.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Plasmafire
December 15, 2008 3:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

so do you think they could be dumb enough to sue disney/pixar for monsters inc?

Reply
");