Wow, talk about trying to save face. Does anyone seriously think that the owner of a microbrew is going to want to switch paths and start marketing bile-flavored snowboarder bait?

And stout...

They're both Monster! What happens if someone tries to drink their overpriced HDMI cable or pours energy drink into their $3K TV?

However, if Monster Energy weren't such jerks, they could have partnered and released a Monster Energy Drink flavored beer and called it "Hard Vermonster". Everyone would have been happy and rich, instead of angering a lot of people and costing them money for no reason.

But then they'd get sued by the company that makes "Mike's Hard Lemonade" because they own the trademark for the word "Hard".

Although I believe we are both entitled, I would be willing to split that 6-pack with you, but I cannot negotiate the Bock.

I worked for a company once that got a cease and desist letter from Syracuse University because our company name was two words starting with S and U. Customers commonly referred to the company as SU! with an exclamation point. Syracuse University claimed to have a trademark on the initials SU and we were violating their trademark. Talk about BS. You can't trademark letters of the alphabet and not allow anybody else in the world to use them. We weren't even remotely the same type of brand, but the wusses that ran SU! backed off anyway and we stopped using it in our publications. I'm sure all we would have had to do is push back a little and they would have backed off just like Monster. All you have to do is defend your trademarks a little in order to prove you are serious about keeping them.

Either I need new glasses or that's one of the worst Photoshops I've seen.

I wonder if Rock Art Vermont brewery uses Monster Mash when making its beer. I wonder if ASCAP would object if he wrote about his Monster Mash. And, at this time of year, it might be a graveyard smash.

I wonder if Monster Trucks need Monster Fuel (energy or alcohol) for their performances.

And from Wikipedia: "The term monster refers to a being that is a gross exception to the norms of some ecosystem. A person referred to as a monster is taken as exceptionally evil, grotesque, unreasonably strict and uncaring, sociopathic, and/or sadistic."

While I often laugh at Wiki's definitions of many words or phrases, it seems they got this one right as it applies to Monster Energy.

@RPHP:

I agree with your analysis 100%, but I think it's also worth pointing out that Coca-Cola has marketed branded products far afield from beverages--I still recall the Coca Cola rugby shirts that Macy's tried to sell years ago.

@Duckula22:

Well, I second the thought, but there's an old saying: "I've only been financially ruined twice--once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won." Settlements are better 99% of the time.

Personally, I think it was MY harshly worded email to Hansens.

On the other hand, on my calendar, Oktoberfest ended 3 weeks ago, so I don't know what you're on about...

@thesadtomato: Gotcha. I've never heard Vermonster before this. I'm from Boston so I'm well aware of Masshole. I really like the Connecticut one there.

@dbshaw: What would be the basis of your harassment lawsuit?

@Naame: "These days" is incorrect. Companies have always tried to squash competition.

(so many states to chose from there, sorry New Jersey-ites. It's not all of you, it's the orange tan, muscle bound, greased hair, tank top wearing, Jersey Shore whores I dislike! Not the "Get them Stephen David" normal(ish) people. So I was mostly kidding.)

@weedpindle: I was just going to mention that. And also note that Ben and Jerry's (or Unilever, for that matter) aren't a$$holes enough to go after this guy, either.

What these comments show is how stupid people are about trademark law.

Monster HAD to threaten legal action to protect their intellectual property. If they didn't, they would be considered negligent in the future for more serious infringement issues. Active protection is absolute necessary. The truth is Monster never probably planned to sue. They just need to send out these infringment letters to all potential infringers to protect its property. I guess most Consumerist readers aren't trademark savy and don't know how trademark law works. Which is pretty obvious because everybody simply ignores that the USPTO organizes beer and energy drinks into the same category. Since Beer only has a typical 5-8% alcoholic content, it is not strong enough to fit under the International Category 33, "Wines & Spirits"; it is International Category 32, "Light Beverages." Anything in Category 32 that might potentially infringe on Monster's trademark - a soda, an energy drink, a girly wine cooler - Hansen needs to protect themselves against.

It's funny, because most of you wouldn't have a problem with this situation being the other way around. It's not David vs. Goliath. It's a large corporation doing what they need to do to protect their intellectual property, just like any other corporation would.

I personally was hoping Hansen would run Rock Art out of business. I'm always disgusted when a small corporation tries to cry to the media, and profit off media exposure, based on making blatant and false generalizations about a far more successful company.

But yeah, I would totally have made Monster staying out of the beer business a condition of them staying out of the energy drink business.

And seriously, Monster sucks. The only energy drink that I find remotely palatable is Bawls.

@Radi0logy: we should just ignore now, huh? I thougt you used to add to the threads, maybe I was straight trippin' as the kids say.

@RPHP: " However, McDonald's claimed that Mc was so identified with them that many could get confused."

Nah, no one would ever try to exploit that!

Really though, it'd be a good idea as nerds are always looking for new ways to enjoy life and get jacked up at the same time. :)

Coca Cola though is the typical example for these hypos because it is one of the few companies that is so big that it gets that type of recognition.

Other companies (even large ones) are certainly confined to certain categories for example Delta - airlines, faucets, and dental companies are all different companies.

That being said I remember an interesting (possibly disturbing for some) case where McDonald's went after a dentist named McDentist and won. I would think this is different than the coke example because the dentist only used the Mc part of the McDonald's name! However, McDonald's claimed that Mc was so identified with them that many could get confused.

Anyway, point stands that for very very recognizable marks they may span many or all categories even without officially registering or selling items in those categories. For most marks though they will be confined to the product category that they sell.

Mount Stewart -> Mount Stew - > Mountstew -> Montstew -> Monster!

Sue the village!

@Sanspants: Wait! What about "New Haleshire"?

@thesadtomato: I don't think there's enough pun. Maybe "Masshale"? Actually, that pretty lame. Sorry for this post.

@Mackinstyle: I'm still waiting for just ONE response from any of the advertised jobs on Monster. Only been 3 years now, my last job came off Craigslist, lol

@Duckula22: @dbshaw:

And then Monster's parent company, Hansen, would have continued the lawsuits until you are bankrupt.

The only reason they probably came with the agreement is the press Mr. Nadeau attracted.

@Duckula22: Thats what I was thinking.

@Naame:

Have you ever tasted Monster Energy Drinks?

No wonder they want to defeat all competitors before they are able to launch a competing beverage.

/drinks to that!
/high fives!

Why can't he STILL make an energy drink if he wants and call it something else???

...Maybe an instant energy drink called The Vermont-stir

Kind of like how the sh!ttiest house in the neighborhood always has the most "No Trespassing" signs in the dilapidated yard. Who'd want to trespass there?

Or maybe the company has just decided to become a "trademark troll", trying to cash in. Or maybe it's both: a trademark lawyer, wanting to look good, talks his bosses (who wouldn't mind an extra revenue stream) into going the trademark-troll route.

Come to think of it, do those sites ever have the real jobs that they advertise, or is it all just 2 year diploma and below stuff?

@AllanG54: The idea of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object scares me to death. Reality as we know it could cease to exist!

I wish they would both go away. I won't be purchasing either. However, nicely done Vermonster. I will be looking for your superior project.

Ummm, yeah but what about Monster staying out of the beer business? I hope he got that agreement, otherwise whats to stop Monster from coming back to ask Rock Art to stay out of the beer business cause they are in it now?

I would have asked "CoNSumerist" for help, but they are violating my trademark, too.

And my brother trademarked "ST".

:-)

So when's the victory party?

Wow, what a novel concept. If you have a trademark, others can use that similar names in completely unrelated businesses. Huh. That should be the law ...

Oh wait. It is.

However, I couldn't help but be reminded by Monster's response that big companies these days are way too focused on preventing any new competition from arising rather than focusing on actually competing with them strictly by the use of providing quality products and services and competitive prices.

@pecan 3.14159265: Beer, I mean. Beer.

What, no super-caffeinated wine?