WTF happened to equality in this country? If I had a billion dollar company and another tiny company had a logo or name 90% like mine. Why would I care? I'm a freaking billion dollar company! You just come off like a huge jerk at that point.

That's such a shame. I used to think their brand was so cool, with customer's photos on the labels.

That's all over now. I try not to give money to companies that pull this kind of crap.

@JackieEggs:

Bawlz I fail at spelling.

I'm liking Red Bull energy shots a lot these days, even if they send the money back to Austria. At least they sponsor racing with the money.

I don't understand the "legally obligated" part though. It's not like a teacher being "legally obligated" to report a child's possible molestation to authorities.

I suppose one may be able to argue that not doing so could be a violation of their fiduciary responsibilities to "maintain shareholder value" (another of my most despised corp-speak phrases.)

I'd be interested in reading about how they are "legally obligated".

@LostAtoll:
The Blue Demon energy drink is by far the most excellent drink on the market. Para la lucha diaria!

@frodolives35:
Oh mai gawsh. Someone I can't get upset at because they used the Pit Bull analogy propery!
I really wanted to get mad, but as tencious as these reps are being at "defending" the trademark, they are definitely deserving of the moniker.

@Scoobatz: Actually, I just had a thought... take down the review and replace it with the cease and desist letter, with a footnote (not mentioning the company/ies involved by name) stating that the review was clearly SO bad that the manufacturer asked that it be taken down.

@Blueskylaw: Monster.com probably already danced with Monster Cable. Check out the very bottom line of their website.

@SJActress: [www.hulu.com]

My point was that ARP is fully correct that there is a fair use doctrine (by that or any other name) in trademark law which you seemed to initially indicate there was not.

Dear Hansen Beverage Company,

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. However, based on the incredibly negative product review of your product we've provided to thousands of our online visitors, I don't think it's in our best financial interest to advertise or sell your product.

If it helps, we will continue to criticize Monster Energy drink to reduce the possibility that our site had a positive influence in its sale.

Sincerely,

Steve Tanner

Expressing your feelings about this topic is good, but here is how to tell them directly:

[www.monsterenergy.com]

@MrEvil: Back in the 1990s as college students, we were ahead of our time consuming Jolt Cola in case volumes to stay awake...

*If you've seen the movie, you get the reference.

@gStein: TAB is still hanging around rebirthed as, wait for it, some sort of energy drink...

I always liked the 1970s TAB advertisements for some reason - maybe the tube top wearing teen females... (please note I was pre-teen/tween age about the same time so put away your creep meters.)

Someone call Survival Tobita.

@Blueskylaw: Monster.com has too much to handle getting all those Nigerian re-shipping scam jobs off their site...

@TCama: More like pre-SLAPP evidence building...

"We wrote to them nicely but they wouldn't take down the copyright-infringing reviews."

@lihtox: Well it is called Monster after all..

@Difdi: Monster Corporate death match:

Cable vs. Energy Drink

If so, sending out letters like that, and responding to reasonable "but we aren't infringing" with what seems to be a form letter ignoring the response, might be moving close to that.

Even if not, I suspect that if those lawyers do take things to court, BevReviews should ask for court costs and sanctions under Rule 11b, which bars lawyers from bringing actions that have no basis in law or fact.

@thehouserules: I'll second that!

@peepingdan: Actually, I used to love Hansen sodas (until 1 min. ago). I will promptly stop buying them at Trader Joes untill Hansen apologizes.

@Dacker: Having been involved in trademark issues before, I can tell you that they ARE legally required to protect the mark.

That doesn't mean they have to be douches about it.

I would recommend reading the comments under TCama in this [consumerist.com] article. Specifically Billy gives a good overview of the subject.

If one looks at what Billy explains it does, in fact, seem that the way ARP is using the term is correct under the New Kids on the Block test.

My guess is that their "IP protector" probably has a script that just crawls the web and emails everyone who isn't an approved vendor. I doubt it's a conspiracy to get a bad review taken down. In fact, I doubt a human has even been involved in this at all.

Isn't that an airline?! lol

@Erwos: Sorry, I used the shorthand "fair use" around a bunch of lawyers (including myself) for instances in which the person is properly using the mark for purposes of comparison or review where a reasonable person would not be confused as to the source of the goods or services.

@gStein: What happened to TAB? The 80s ended.

But... trademark protection is only there to protect your trademark against (confusing) use by competitors in the same industry. You don't get trademark protection when people are using your trademark to refer to your product. So, yes, this is ludicrous on all levels anyways. :)

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

If Consumerist fails to this I will stomp my little feet some more and glare in their general direction.

So sad.

Coffee, then root beer Ballz... just my .02.

[users.stargate.net]

1-2 cans of sugar free monster per day... Guess what I wont be drinking any more?

Call this what it is: an attempt to silence free speech.

I highly doubt that the makers of that shit mistook the review for an ad. What they're doing is along the lines of what Disney did to Spocko a few years ago: harass, threaten and outspend a small critic into silence.

And no doubt the liars...sorry, lawyers are the ones who came up with the phony tactic: "We can't attack him for free speech, so we'll attack under a phony argument and spend him into silence!"

I have to say though that this kind of trade mark abuse does not amuse me though, I guess it's time to see if I can find some other energy drink I can stand.

@peepingdan:
I sent them an "angry-gram" yesterday about their bullying over the "Vermonster" tradmark. The body of the email I received today said, "Hansen is legally obliged to, and routinely sends, cease and desist
letters..."

Sorry, I'm not buying their argument; Hansen's is NOT "legally obliged" to do anything. Rock Art Brewery makes beer and Hansen's makes energy drinks. One could easily argue that the products are the antithesis of each other and that there is no way one could confuse one product for another. If Rock Art Brewery had a product called, "Monster Brew" or "Monster Ale", then they may have an argument, but this is not the case.

IMHO, Hansen is simply being a deep-pocketed bully, picking on the small guy.

I'm just waiting for Monster Cable(r), the most notorious and litigious company I know, to send Hansen a "cease and desist" letter. It would be "just dessert!"

It is my hope that Rock Art Brewery is able to resist their strong-arm legal bullying and has it's day in court where a judge will use common sense to summarily dismiss their claim.

Personally, someone in the PTO needs to be fired for giving the word MONSTER to *anyone*.

I tend to not spend my money on products that are made by companies who go around suing the pants off of people as part of its business plan.

I'm pretty sure they already have.

Fred Savage = kid from Wonder Years.
Michael Savage = batshit insane conservative anti-gay talk radio host

@kelrod: Please someone with more creative tallent than I, please create a Godzilla vs. King Kong spoof of Monster Cable vs. Monster Energy Drink vs Monster Golf vs Vermonster. Make sure to include the bad foreign language audio dub.

what ever happened to people drinking TAB?

And Monster.com sits on the sideline while Monster Energy and Monster Cable tango, because when elephants are dancing it's best for mice to step aside.
(obscure Cuban Missile Crisis reference)

I pointed out to them that a bad review wouldn't have kept me from buying them (they all taste a bit on the nasty side, and Monster isn't any worse than the others IMO. Caffeine has a nasty taste that's hard to cover up). Their decision to threaten and bully the reviewer on the other hand DOES keep me from buying their product.

I vote with my wallet.

I posted the last story on as many sites as I could and I'll now be linking this story. I hope this stupidity sends their sales into a tail spin.

@skizsrodt:

No, that would be a Win for Monster, since it would mean wasting time/money on a frivolous complaint.

@RvLeshrac:

Should be "Third: {insert_canned_coffee}"

@LostAtoll:

Best energy drink: Rumba (Not the Samba or Tango, though. They taste like ass.)

Second best: NOS or Venom.

Third:

Technically, it sounds like all they have to do is write a letter stating that they have complied, seeing as how they aren't actually selling or promoting anything. That would be a win-win for both parties, right?

The tests for trademark infringement are: was the potentially infringing mark used in commerce and would a reasonable person be confused (misled) by the use of the mark in question.

Might be Monster thought that by saying what the product actually tastes like, he might be trying to promote it. :)

I threw it on the ground!
You must think I'm a joke!
I ain't gonna be part of this system!
Man, pump that garbage in another man's veins!
[...]"

I wonder if Continental Enterprises caused the problem with Vermonster. I hope Hansen sees that their new trade mark pitbulls are bad for their rep.

@kelrod: I was waiting for someone to mention this idea. I would rather watch that court battle on C-SPAN over our blow-hole congressman parading on the TV.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Give it up for the Streisand Effect once again....here is the wiki if you dont know what it is.

[en.wikipedia.org]

When are these companys gonna learn?!?!

Yep. Sounds to me like they're using misusing Trademark law in an effort to get a bad review taken down. Does anybody know if TM holders are now required to at least consider fair use before they starting launching nastygrams? I thought there was a pending case on that.