"Monster" Audio/Video Cable Co. Tries to Bully Small Vintage Clothing Business

[MonsterVintage]

“Monster” Cable Company Tries to StrongArm Small Vintage Clothing Business

Monster Cable, an Audio/ Video cable specialist is attempting to takeover the domain name and use of the word “Monster” for many websites around the globe. Monster Cable has filed a Federal Lawsuit to take over the website www.Monstervintage.com. Monster Cable claims that we (Monster Vintage) do not have the right to use the word “MONSTER”, a word used to emphasize our large selection of used vintage clothing. Attorneys for Monster Cable reported to the court fraudulent signatures to sneak thru the Federal Court system and take over www.Monstervintage.com., putting us out of business and stealing our domain name. Currently, the Monster Cable Corp. is in a number of legal battles over the word usage of “Monster”, including a recent one with San Francisco’s own, Candlestick Park. (See: www.insidebayarea.com/ci_2420226)

Monstervintage.com is a very small cottage business established during the summer of 2001, which sells classic All-American, used vintage clothing. We (Monster Vintage) would like to know how our business threatens a 300 Million dollar a year cable company?

We have started the legal procedures necessary to fight this battle, and would love to share our story with a number of media outlets to show how some big corporations try to strong-arm smaller businesses into submission. (See below on how to contact Monster Cable with your voice on this important issue).

We (Monster vintage) can be reached at the following:

Victor Petrucci
Monstervintage.com (Updated with new info on this case)
P.O. Box 679
Camas, WA 98607
503-780-6316
info@monstervintage.com

***P.S. Letters to Monster Cable (dgraham@monstercable.com PR Dept./ dgraham@monstercable.com General Counsel) expressing your thoughts on this issue are highly encouraged. Thank you for your time and patience on this important issue.***

 

[glz]

They have money to burn. The just purchased the new name for candlestick park in SFO...

 

[JohnA]

Sorry to hear that

Sorry to hear that... Fight the good fight!!! And Good luck to you. From your website the name is TM so it looks like you have a good foothold! I don't think you should have a problem (but I'm no law mucky-muck) because you are dealing with clothes and not A/V products you should have no problem...If there is any judge who would fav "Monster" is this type of suit must be getting paid under the table! Good luck!

 

[JohnA]

Trade Mark

From the look of it "MONSTER" is trademarked. Note it is in all caps...so in theroy anyone could use the term monster as long as it is not in all caps.

Good Luck

 

[JohnA]

Try this

Hey you might want to look into contacting people that use "monster" products, ie. Ozzy Osbourne http://www.monstercable.com/frangionifiles/ and get "big" people to back you...I can't see how someone like Ozzy would back Monster if he knew what was going on. Just a thought.

 

[Stryf3]

It’s the law that a company has to protect any perceived infringement of their trademarks or lose exclusivity of them.

 

[FLMike]

Yes, they have to protect, but....

Stryf3,
You're right, but Monster isn't entitled to prevent the use of the word in any conceivable commercial context. My understanding is that there has to be some risk of confusion of the average consumer in the marketplace, particularly with a generic term like Monster. If it were a company calling itself "MONSTER Audio and Video" there would be a good chance of consumers getting the impression it was run by MONSTER cable. If it were Monster Grocery, I don't think many people would make that association. Lot's of big companies pull this kind of stuff all the time. Intel does it all the time.

Mike

 

[Stryf3]

I understand what your saying, but Monster does have a line (be it a very small one) of clothing. Mostly Promo stuff, but it is Monster brand not a Hanes Beefy T-shirt with a monster logo ironed onto the front. It may seem silly, but if they don't pursue legal action with every company (even if the litigation fails) using the name Monster, they can leave themselves open to losing exclusive rights of the name. You never know how someone will continue to use the name or expand product or service offerings unless you go after them.

 

[FLZapped]

I understand what your saying, but Monster does have a line (be it a very small one) of clothing. Mostly Promo stuff, but it is Monster brand not a Hanes Beefy T-shirt with a monster logo ironed onto the front. It may seem silly, but if they don't pursue legal action with every company (even if the litigation fails) using the name Monster, they can leave themselves open to losing exclusive rights of the name. You never know how someone will continue to use the name or expand product or service offerings unless you go after them.

Right. then they should have gone after monster.com first by that logic.

It's nothng but a big company bullying a little one.

 

[mtrycrafts]

It's nothng but a big company bullying a little one.

Yes, but, the big companies have deeper pockets

 

[FLMike]

Deep Pockets and a bad attitude

I agree with both Mtry and FL. I work in the data/communications industry and this behavior is not unusual and in many cases it's absurd. The companies that engage in this conduct have deep pockets and a bad attitude. They do it because they can. And because they have a group of attorneys on staff or under retainer that have to justify their paychecks. I respect a company's right to protect their brand. It costs a lot to build one and once built it should be protected. But I really don't think that there is much possibility of confusion in this case. I guess the MONSTER Truck rally at the local fair-grounds will be the next target <SIGH>.

Mike

 

[Stryf3]

They did go after Monster.com, and the two companies reached a confidential settlement. Kinda blows away your theory of Monster only going trying to bully little companies. Again, the question is not wether or not Joe Consumer confuses the 2 companies. Monster Cable has to aggressively protect their brand name in every instance that a possible infringement has occured, or they lose their legal right to protect it against anyone.

 

[Leprkon]

They did go after Monster.com, and the two companies reached a confidential settlement. Kinda blows away your theory of Monster only going trying to bully little companies. Again, the question is not wether or not Joe Consumer confuses the 2 companies. Monster Cable has to aggressively protect their brand name in every instance that a possible infringement has occured, or they lose their legal right to protect it against anyone.

based on your logic, the "cable" companies need to be suing Monster Cable....

it would be much easier to assume Monster Cable has something to do with cable TV than to assume that Monstervintage had anything to do with speaker wire....

what's next, them suing the United States Government for having the nerve to use copper in pennies ??

maybe it's the paying for lawyers that makes their products so expensive (or was it the naming rights to the ballpark in San Francisco or their "monstrous" advertising expenditures). I guess they gotta sue anyone they can find since alot of people are going to other products that are just as effective and far cheaper.

in their arrogance, they will someday annoy the wrong person and get their own hineys waxed (ie TARA cables).

 

[FLMike]

Stryf,
Yes they have to protect their trademark to maintain rights to it. But Monster does not have to (and in all honesty is not supposed to be able to) attack every company that uses Monster in their name to protect their trademark/brand (not the same thing) "MONSTER Cable". It's called protection against dilution, but it requires very strong trademarks with a "singular association in the public mind". A company like "Coca-cola" has to be very aggressive. Their trademark is an invented word not used in any other context other than their product. Monster is a generic term and except with a bunch of audio-heads, MONSTER Cable is probably not the first thing your average Joe thinks of when they hear the word. Hardly a singular association in the public mind.

Oh, and the fact that they chose to go after Monster.com doesn't have anything to do with whether they are complete jerks for going after a small vintage clothing company.

Mike

 

[Stryf3]

Monster Cable is doing what they have to to protect their trademark. They manufacture many different items that you may not think of when you think of MONSTER cable (clothing, mints, batteries). In the court they could lose their exclusive right to protect thier name if they allow any instance known to them to go unchallenged. In the case of Vintage Monster, it may be a small chance that another company could use that as leverage to infringe on MONSTER's name, but it is a chance. If I owned and acompany in which I spent decades building a brand name, I would er on the side of caution in these cases. From MONSTER’s point of view, I would think it makes way more sense to go after anything that could be perceived by any idiot lawyer as an infringement, even if it means losing many of these cases. If there case is so weak, why are these guys up in arms, MONSTER will lose and it’ll all be over soon. It’s just business.

Btw, MONSTER going after Monster.com was brought up by someone else earlier in the thread, I was merely pointing out that they are not just going after little companies to bully them, they have a track record of going after anyone using the monster name. Because of the generic status of the word monster, I’m sure they wind up taking legal action against a lot of companies. You can say MONSTER is a bunch of jerks for doing this, but guess what, every company in America has to operate pretty much the same way in this regard. I’m done with this thread and probably this forum, there are way too many people here ready to bash their favorite “whipping boy”, for just practicing smart business. It’s ridiculous the things MONSTER, Bose, George Lucas, or any number of other companies, organizations, or people are slammed for on this forum with little or no regard to the facts, smart business practices, or now the legal system, just because it’s popular to slam them.

oh and btw Leprkon, if there was a company called simple "CABLE", not cablevision, not Adelphia Cable, but just cable, your feeble argument might be valid.



out….

 

[FLMike]

Stryf,
You aren't all wrong on this. Monster's problem is that Monster is generic and in common use. Here is a link to a good explanation of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilution

Mike

 

[Leprkon]

so "Cox Cable" which services about 3/4 of the Midwest and Southern United States would qualify (and has since the early 70's).. seeing how Monster Cable does not have Monster Vintage in it...

maybe I should drop a line to their lawyers...

 

[FLZapped]

Yes, but, the big companies have deeper pockets

Of course, so they wouldn't dare get into an "armed" confrontation with someone equally "weaponized".......

 

[farscaper]

I understand the reasoning about protecting ones name especially when inside your own industry. But wasn't Monster Vintage Clothing in the clothing business years before MONSTER Cable went into the clothing business?
Its all business! So lets look at it as a business and see if you are losing money. Can Monster Cable determine that Monster vintage is hurting them financially? No loses? No impact? No issues?

 

[WmAx]

I, personallly(not from a legal standpoint-just my feelings), beleive Monster Cable deserves to lose ALL trademarks using the 'monster' name due to their ABUSE of the legal system. 'Monster' is a generic term that existed before 'Monster Cable' existed. How can someone rightfully come along and assimulate a generic term? Was the legal system meant to protect this kind of B.S.? This kind of crap annoys the hell out of me.

-Chris