The dispute has arisen because Hansen, the maker of Monster Energy Drink wants to enter the alcoholic beverage market.
"I said `Too bad, I'm already here.' I've been here. And I'm already brewing beer," said Nadeau.
Here's an interview with Mr. Nadeau:
Monster-maker to Vt. brewer: No 'Vermonster' beer [AP] (Thanks, Gene!)
]]>And your facts are a bit misleading. According to the US TM registration cite, Rock Art first used "Vermonster" in trade in 2006 and didn't get around to applying for registration until this year. Hansen has been using "Monster" longer and it registered prior to Rock Art's use, too.
Personally, I don't think there's any likelihood of confusion. I'm also not sure that Hansen's mark encompasses alcoholic beverages.
On the other hand, Hansen seems to think that there *is* likelihood of confusion and that they *do* have the registration rights. It's so wrong for them to defend their rights?
]]>Rock Art started brewing beer out of the owner's basement in 1997 and then moved to a larger microbrewery when the beer took off. They bring a lot of revenue to the area and also a number of jobs. Plus, Rock Art's been brewing beer far longer than Monster Energy's been in business.
When Matt created his new Barleywine Vermonster, he went to have the name trademarked. That's when Monster jumped in and had their lawyers send a cease and desist notice. He's tried to work with them to no avail and instead went public.
Currently, two stores that I know of have stopped selling any Monster Energy drinks in this area. I've also heard a couple professional athletes have dropped their Monster sponsorships because of the battle. Anheuser Busch and Coca-Cola have deals with Monster to be the sole distributors for their energy drinks, so a number of people have also started boycotting their products.
Yesterday, Hansen's Beverage sent out a press release to anyone that had emailed their company informing them their entire product line is all being boycotted. I know there are thousands of people who have sent letters and Hansen's is obviously feeling the effect because their press release tried to explain that this is common behavior for them when someone uses the term "Monster" in any trademark application. I don't buy it. The list of companies they listed all targets small breweries. Companies like Brooklyn Brewing, much larger, were not on the list.
In the end, it is all bullying tactics and Hansen's is going to learn the hard way that people don't stand for it.
]]>If not, Monster Cable should totally sue.
]]>God damn energy drink company can't claim that they've invented the word Monster. I was using that word since before energy drinks were a thing.
In the country I wish I lived in, when this kind of thing was even SUGGESTED, every. single. person. would stop buying Monster energy drinks, until that company was under nine feet of dirt. If we lived in a country like that, our companies would be VERY god damn careful about where they put their money.
]]>Dear Monster Energy,
It has come to my attention that your parent company Hansen is attempting to bully a local Vermont brewery by legal means in an attempt to carve a path in the alcoholic beverage market. Please be advised that as a regular consumer of Monster Energy drinks, I have ceased all of my purchasing and consumption of all products under your parent company. I will also be passing this along to the many young adults my age and teenagers I know to further a boycott on your products.
If you continue, it will have a much more negative reflection on your company and new product line than you can imagine.
If you want my business and my positive word of mouth review back, then you will cease this disgusting lawsuit against Rock Art Brewery, and you will find another, non-infringing name for your new beverage line.
I am not alone in this opinion. Your gross use of the US legal system has been posted to several high profile blogs, community bulletin boards, and video sites all across the internet, and your action has put your company in a very negative light for many.
Sincerely,
]]>Shame you jumped to conclusions. It's the "big brother" to their Ridge Runner beer with 10% APV
]]>Anyhow, "Monster" energy drink and "Vermonster" beer aren't likely to be confused as being from the same manufacturer.
]]>Examples:
Brooklyn Monster Ale
Sacramento Monster
Deschutes Green Monster
Paper City Hop Monster
... and on and on. There is no way they can win this fight. I wish they would pick a fight with Monster Cable, then everyone wins!
]]>The whole question is whether Hansen's mark applies to "beer". Rock Art wants to register its mark for "beer" only, but it's unclear whether Hansen's registered mark already encompasses the use for beer. It has many registered marks for many different iterations of beverages.
This is all beside the point of whether there would be confusion in the first place.
]]>You're merely asserting that it doesn't mean "raising the question" even thought that's what most people use it to mean.
]]>At least, that's the justification that lawyers have offered, for these suits ... "prevention of trademark dilution."
]]>Anyway, the idea that a term is common does not necessarily mean it can not be trademarked - see Secondary Meaning in Trademark Law. However, if something is simply descriptive it can not be trademarked such as calling actual paint "paint".
]]>Which is basically how the legal system wants things to be. A legal system that discouraged lawsuits would be shooting itself in the foot and depriving too many good, honest, working sharks (er, attorneys) of their hard-earned opportunity to make millions, feeding at the trough of public commerce.
]]>here is Monster's wiki page if someone wishes to add this controversy...
[en.wikipedia.org]
At any rate, I give her my name (and my zip code when she asked) and asked her to ask whoever might be able hear it, to stop the frivolous lawsuit against Rock Art Brewery. No one in their right mind would confuse Vermonster Beer with Monster Energy drink.
I felt like she was blowing me off, but she did say that she was documenting my concerns and forwarding it to those that would handle the issue. If only Monster Cable would get into a giant cat fight with Monster Beverage, maybe Rock Art would get overlooked.
]]>mmmhm, corporate bullying.
they're acting like children -
"i want that!"
"no, i had it first"
"i'm bigger than you!" *punches Matt and takes his brewery*
The above comment lumps the brewery into the notion that they are also acting like children by defending their position.
"How is this brewer being childish, exactly?"
They are not.
]]>So long monster, i've enjoyed you daily on my rides to work for the last few years. Now i'll just have to wait until I can get the VERmonster in my area and enjoy it after work.
You're pitiful little lawsuit has lost me as a customer. I realize, that, I as a single person may not be that big of a deal. But that's a minimum of 365 sales a year you will be losing. And i'll be spreading the word about your despicable suit against a small time business, the type of business this country was founded on.
]]>@Elcheecho:
I hereby let it go--sadly, my literalism has already made it the most discussed comment. oops.
550 Monica Circle, Suite 201
Corona, California 92880(Address of principal executive offices)
(951) 739 - 6200
From their SEC filings. Is this public service or civil disobedience? :)
]]>I'm certainly not on Hanson's side on this one, I agree that the likelihood of confusion is, in all reasonableness, close to zero, and that they are in separate markets. But, based on Hanson's letter to Rock Art, and Rock Art's response, Hanson appears to be claiming that they have a desire to enter the alcoholic beverage market.
From Rock Art's response:
"Your response was that, 'the energy drink category was never the concern to my client; it is that my client [Hanson] would now like to enter the alcoholic beverage market.'"
The truth or falsity of that statement is up in the air, and it certainly looks and smells a lot like corporate bullying. However, it does muddy the water, at least from a legal standpoint. Bearing all of that in mind, I still don't think people are going to confuse Monster Energy (alcoholic or non) and Vermonster -- at least no one with taste buds.
]]>Their SEC filings are online.
[www.sec.gov]
Now to wade through all those docs for contact information.
]]>Wait...Hansen's? Like that horrible cream soda?
]]>@FREAKHEAD: I always wanted to create a band called "More" and have a side project called "Others"...and then sue concert promoters.
]]>@pxf9641:
Really? That's the best you could do? Try again; you can do better.
'I am a (admittedly very small) investor in Hansen's Natural. While I'm sure that most of your investor profile will not care about a Vermont microbrewery, I will drop my investment and encourage others to do so if Hansen's continues its litigation of Rock Art Brewery over its product, the "Vermonster". Profits and earnings mean little to me if it entails crushing non-competitors Apple-style.'
]]>Monster Cable Sues Monster Energy Drink Co. for Suing Brewer Over Use of Monster Trademark
]]>@FREAKHEAD: The makers of 'Ridiculous' the new frangrance with... somebody or other's name on it... will be contacting you shortly to slap your post with a cease and desist.
]]>I think the owner of this brewery shouldve been a touch more creative in his naming. Going immediately to anything with a size based superlative in your product name is just really silly.
Meanwhile I'm going to continue development on my new product, Coka-Booza, a rum based beverage of my own design.
]]>@treimel:
My Favorite is still the Chinese guy...I'd attempmt to recreate it on my keyboard, but I'll probably end up embarassing myself...
]]>@Good Cop Baby Cop: What do we want? Lots of beer! When do we want it? Now!
]]>@CyGuy: No, it won't. They'll argue that there will still be brand confusion.
]]>Of course this is only a town over from Quincy where Dunkin Donuts originated, I have no clue how old the sign is but it's always intriguing when I pass it and I wonder if it's a shameless ripoff or if it's the victim of one.
]]>@MeOhMy: I totally would if I were an IP lawyer :(
]]>@remington870_20ga: He still has to get to the point of a judge throwing out the lawsuit, and that's not free.
]]>@lehrdude:
Sadly, I can hear that chant perfectly in my head. '70s sitcoms, is there anything they *can't* apply to?
@RecordStoreToughGuy_HadCakeAndIceCreamForLunch: Because he's not worried about Monster Booze being confused with Vermonster, and he's not a dick?
]]>That's why they should have to pay triple damages on it, at least. there needs to be a real deterrent.
]]>WTF is with all these monster companies thinking they own everything?
]]>Part of my job is working on legal clearances for fictitious products used in video games. The biggest rule I go by is if there is already a product with a similar name on the market, we do not in any way use a name close to theirs. Bottom line, he never should have named the beer Vermonster if he wasn't expecting to get sued by Hansen.
]]>@LMacConn:
If you're trying to contrast the two, why would you write "I had it first" then? It doesn't get a lot more childish then saying "I had it first," I *get* what was attempted, it just doesn't work logically. And with that, I respectfully bow out of this and wonder why I spent fifteen minutes of my life on a silly internnet sentence construction dispute. :)
@pfx--learn what "trolling" actually is, get some friends and get some followers, then we'll talk.
]]>Eh, Monster Energy Drink tastes like ass. I'm more of a Jolt Cola girl.
]]>No Roger, No Re-Run, No Rent!
]]>Somebody stand up for this guy and do it pro bono!
]]>@Xerloq speaks Portuguese, too...:
ugggh--"I had it first" only makes sense: 1) for the person who, I dunno, *had it first* (the brewer) and 2) was responding to the person who said "I want that" (Monster/Hansen.)
At this point I get what was *attempted* to be written, but it's not what they wrote.
Also, I made no reference to "are acting like children" so I don't know who you're responding to there.
I'm looking at the Monster can on my desk and shaking my head. Time to tell my friends about the assholes who make this drink.
]]>@gggtur: I don't see how he could lose. There's so many different people/companies using the name Vermonster.
]]>@El_Fez: AND if you select "complaint" as your reason then verification will fail - select other.
What weasels.
]]>"Recently I learned you have filed a trademark suit against Vermont brewing company Rock Art regarding their beer the "Vermonster". This type of frivolous lawsuit against a small company who, besides being no threat to you, has a beer with a name that in no way will cause someone to mistake it for your product in unacceptable I just wanted to inform you that I refuse to purchase your product ever again unless a formal apology to Rock Art is made. Good Day"
not that it'll have an effect, but who knows
]]>@CrazedChimp: Yup. Good call though. You can find all sorts of things called Vermonster. I listed a few above.
]]>Vermonster:
[www.vermonster4x4.com]
Vermonster:
[www.vermonster.com]
Vermonster:
[en.wikipedia.org]
Vermonsters:
[www.vermonsters.org]
F U MONSTER
]]>I find it interesting that the prominent thing immediately upon website loading is graphic saying "LOADING CRAP". snicker.
]]>Monster Energy is owned by Hansen's Natural.
They have a web comment form here:
[www.hansens.com]
And list this contact info on their page:
Contact By Mail
Hansen Beverage Company
Attention: Customer Relations
1010 Railroad Street
Corona, CA 92882
or
Contact us by Phone:
1-800-HANSENS or
1-800-426-7367
"Monster are acting like children" is a perfectly acceptable construction in English when referring to a corporate entity.
]]>(What? 867-5309 is my default number for these circumstances!)
]]>@remington870_20ga: Wait... thats the precident this guy needs. Ben and Jerrys have the name and they are not being sued by Monster.
If Monster sues this guy then they also need to sue Ben and Jerrys.
BTW: I have a new terrabyte harddrive called Vermonster. The logo is of a guy named "Vermon" and this is his terrabyte drive, hense the "ter" on the end of the name. Sue me.
]]>@AustinTXProgrammer: So wait, Monster sued Monster, and Monster lost the case, so Monster has to license the rights to the Monster name from Monster, and Monster has to defend the Monster trademark for any beverage company that utilizes the Monster name. And now Monster is suing a company called Vermonster because the company name contains the letters M-O-N-S-T-E-R in sequence and may cause confusion among consumers who will immediately associate Vermonster with VER-Monster rather than VERMON-ster, or VERMONT-ster.
I think I have just created the modern day version of the classic commedy skit "Who's on First"
]]>The link is here : [www.monsterenergy.com]
]]>If you want to boycott, not only boycott Monster/Hansens, but also try and boycott the products of their local distributors. In many markets the local Dr. Pepper/7-Up bottler is the distributor. Check and see who is distributing them and tell them that you are boycotting all the products they distribute because of Monster's actions
]]>He's here! He's brewing beer! Get used to it!
]]>I actually understand where they are coming from. They should just ink an agreement that Monster and Vermonster in very different fonts aren't related and that they will never sue each other. I don't think consumers would be confused, and they can both win.
Without defending their agreement now and getting a written agreement, they would be at risk of being sued themselves, and they paid Monster Cable a lot of money, so I can see why they want to protect their turf.
]]>@nbs2: I didnt know they sold out. I guess I missed that story.
]]>Change the name to "VermontSter" Once the additional T is added to the name, it should take the wind out of Monster's sails.
]]>But it annoys the heck out of me that so many companies are suing people for use of the word "Monster" in the name of a product or company, as if the word "monster" was unique to any particular company. I think that the judge should have the option to make the plaintiff pay the victim/defendant double the amount of the defendant's court costs for time and trouble.
]]>@nybiker:
Forget it--that ship has sailed a long, long time ago.
I don't even get what the hell they're trying to say there. I don't even see what would be an "acceptable" use of BTQ there.
But whatever. Substitute "raises" for "begs" if it makes you feel better.
]]>@treimel:
"finding" = "fighting."
Well, maybe, but that's not what was written: How could "No I had it first" refer to anyone but the brewer; the implication is that Monster's finding with themselves? I don't think so.
]]>It probably IS Monster Cable behind this. I mean does Monster Energy Drink have a history of this sort of litigiousness? (I don't know for sure that they don't.) Monster Cable could be manipulating Monster energy drink, maybe by altering the terms of their settlement.
This would not be a unique situation. Microsoft was behind SCO's lawsuits against Linux companies.
]]>Snail mail and phone, from the Hansen's site:
Hansen Beverage Company
Attention: Customer Relations
1010 Railroad Street
Corona, CA 92882
or
Contact us by Phone:
1-800-HANSENS or
1-800-426-7367
It's like trying to cross a mountain range. It's all downhill on the other side, but if you can't get to the top in the first place, you're screwed.
And that's why I don't walk to work.
]]>@rworne:
A set of Monster cables for $100? Don't you mean "A" Monster cable?
]]>@FooSchnickens - Now with .308 action!:
Yeah, I admit it; please explain to me how "they" doesn't mean *both* parties.
You
]]>Why not email the Monster Cable people and tell them you ordered what you thought was a set $100 HDMI cables and got a case of energy drinks instead.
Getting these two behemoths at each other's throats would be entertaining.
]]>@MeOhMy: I see what you did there....and I strongly approve.
Yes, if I had the time, I would help him as well. This is too far from EFF for them to get involved.
]]>@YouDidWhatNow?: Hey now, no 'begging the question' comments. ;-)
]]>@gStein:
How is this brewer being childish, exactly? Monster energy drinks are being bullies, that's for sure, but I hardly see what he's doing wrong.
]]>Shouldn't be a problem for him.
Dave Carroll (Mr. Broken Guitar) is nothing but a sellout whore for big media, anyways.
No, I didn't see that coming, either.
The backstory: In Canada, it is legal to rebroadcast OTA TV without paying fees. Cable Cos do this, and they don't pay broadcasters, although they charge their customers for basic cable which is mostly filled with these stations. Broadcasters want a cut of this money which is presently used partially to fund repairing/upgrading the cable system and, of course, for profits.
That in and of itself wouldn't be a problem, but the big media broadcasters who paid for his AD (CTV et al.) want cable to absorb these fees they want to impose without passing costs on to customers. On what planet does a capitalist company start giving handouts to people without charging someone for it?
Fuck Dave Carroll. He's an ass.
]]>@lilyHaze: @Real Cheese Flavor:
...which begs the question why Monster Energy Drink hasn't sued Monster Cable yet - or vice-versa.
]]>Well, it is true that "Vermonster" and "Monster" are similar and Monster could say that consumers may think "Vermonster" is made my Monster and could create "confusion within the marketplace".
Maybe this guy had the rights first. Hansen's may back down. These are often just warnings.
Now, some small business owners are just stupid. I read a story recently about one who opened a sandwich shop named "STEAKWAYS" and was stunned when "SUBWAY" sued him. He lost and he knew damn well people would relate one to the other when he named his business. He even used a similar logo.
]]>I missed the story the other day.
]]>@rpm773: Nah, he should enlist the help of the Monster miniature golf company that won against Monster Cable.
]]>@remington870_20ga: No, they're too busy counting the payout from Unilever to care.
]]>If I was a lawyer, I'd totaly take this case on a pro beero basis.
]]>Lawyers are smart enough to know that throwing a C&D letter at someone, even if baseless, is usually a cheap way to get compliance. There's a good chance even Monster has no intentions of going further than a scary lawyer letter.
]]>"A monster of a sundae - 20 scoops of ice cream, hot fudge, banana, cookies, brownies, and all of your favorite toppings."
]]>Also, I'm sure Monster $2k an hour lawyers could provide enough BS to get past summary.
]]>@nbs2: i'm pretty sure if you called it "monster power drink" the monster energy people might object to that.
]]>@benbell: Because Ben & Jerry are too high to care.
]]>Monster knows they have a really poor case. As soon as they realize he's not going to back down, they will probably give up.
]]>Rock Art Brewery: [www.rockartbrewery.com]
Hansen's Conact Info: [www.hansens.com]
]]>But if this guy makes a kit like the Naked Cowboy did when he ran for Mayor, I will gladly contribute $15 for a t-shirt or Bumper Sticker and support him.
]]>He shouldnt have to go to court on this. A hearing will end it by a judge throwing out the lawsuit.
]]>Wait, wait, wait.
They are going after him because they want to enter his market?
Hey folks, I'm starting a new business. I'm going to blend Gatorade and Mountain Dew syrup, and then boil it down, and finally add some carbonated water. Because it is a Frankenstein like concoction, I'm going to call it Monster Power drink. These Hansen guys need to back off since I want in on their market.
]]>It's like trying to cross a mountain range. It's all downhill on the other side, but if you can't get to the top in the first place, you're screwed.
]]>