Monster Cable - Continued...

S

Steve1000

Audioholic
Thanks. No point posting anything but the truth. I think it's fair to say that their cables are usually perfectly good but that they do not charge higher prices for the reason that they are improving the cables to the point where they are best in class. I think it is fair to characterize such a statement as demonstrably false. This is one area that cannot be finessed by slippery language. It also looks like their $50 / 10 foot pair of speaker cables (plus another $25 for the Monster banana plugs) in your (Mudcat's) test was a bit of a clunker, a below average performer that was not even remotely approaching best in class. :)

From Monster Cable reply said:
10) ....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....
Mudcat said:
 
Last edited:
S

Steve1000

Audioholic
I really think it would be productive to call Monster on their reply to the extent it may be intentionally deceptive.

I think it's important for people to know that suing someone and threatening to sue someone are two different things. Even the threat of invoking legal proceedings from a large corporation can be quite damaging.

Snowmonster, for some strange reason, continues to ask that we boycott monster cable.

http://www.snowmonsters.com/

What's their motivation? :rolleyes:

From Monster's reply:

In the case of Snow Monsters, we have NEVER sued them, and we are not trying to harm their company. I think that their products are great and don’t cause us any problems, I have written them and told them so. They are also using the word “monster” for characters, not as a brand, which is how we use Monster. Please, see the list of our trademarks below that I have provided for you.
 
Last edited:
S

Steve1000

Audioholic
Here, why not make this more accessible for quotations and discussion, since Audioholics has permission to reprint:


Monster Cable Responds - A Message from Noel Lee


Noel Lee, CEO of Monster Cable Products has issued an official response regarding recent negative publicity related to trademark issues and corporate usage of the word “Monster”. The following statement was sent to us directly from their legal department and we were issued permission to reprint it. - Audioholics


There have been a lot of rumors, misinformation, and false accusations spread on the web about Monster Cable and its trademark and brand protection efforts. We have been wrongfully accused of suing any company using the “Monster” name, and as being a “corporate bully.”


Anyone who knows our company, or me personally, knows that we are not that kind of company, and I am not that kind of person. The information out there is categorically untrue.


Being a champion of the entrepreneur, and having started Monster in a garage with no money myself, I would be the last person to want to stop someone who had a legitimate right to use a trade name for their business. Those who know me and have met me, know that we have built a fantastic company from nothing through sheer hard work and a lot of sweat equity. You can check out our story at: http://monstercable.com/company_info/ and http://www.monsterparksf.com/info/WhoIsMonster.asp


I have even spoken at several colleges about how to become an entrepreneur, and value these opportunities. In fact, my parents were on one of the last boats out of China during its civil war. I truly have lived the American dream, and I am not going to prevent others from achieving it. I feel fortunate to have been born an American.


Some of the negative press you have read may have started with some newspaper articles that have mistaken information in them, or others who have found this opportunity to spread negative press for their own agendas.


Snow Monsters mistakenly portrayed that our objection to their attempt to register trademarks was a lawsuit, which isn’t true. We have not sued Snow Monsters. We would never try to harm a company whose focus is on ski education programs and products for children.


In fact, Monster is a big supporter of programs for children. You can see what we have recently done with kids at Monster Park. http://www.monsterparksf.com/fun/Photos.asp


Before you form any negative impressions of my company or how I have directed it, permit me to straighten out some of the misconceptions.

1) We do not have any trademark infringement lawsuits pending, and we do not object or take action against businesses just because they sell products that have “Monster” in their names. If we did, we would never be able to run our business, not to mention the financial burden would crush us. We have better things to do than spend this kind of money and time.


2) There are over 1,100 registered “Monster” trademarks in the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, and probably hundreds more that are unregistered. We don’t have any intention of suing them or taking any action against them. These marks have been allowed by the Trademark Office, just as our 50+ marks in the various classes listed below.


3) We have not sued or filed actions against the hundreds of companies that are using the word Monster. So if anyone is representing this to you, they are not right and should be corrected.


What I think has happened, is people are misinterpreting the U.S. Patent and Trademark office’s database. When you do a search on the USPTO database for Monster, it brings up a bunch of records dating back to 1983; like a Google search does. It appears people are seeing the search results and assuming they are lawsuits. They are not lawsuits. In fact, most of the search results are duplicate listings or merely requests for 60 day extensions (which allow us to do further investigation to see if there are any potential conflicts). The database shows Monster has opposed about 80 trademarks over the last twenty years. That’s about 4 trademark oppositions a year, which isn’t very many for a company that has over 50+ Monster trademarks and is a famous brand.


Don’t just take my word for it, please search the database for yourself.

(Click on the links and you will see the words “Extension of Time” on many of them).

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&pno=&qs=Monster+Cable+Products,+Inc.&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=


4) Trademark registrations and trademark oppositions are decided by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, not us. Even if we do object to a particular filing to register a trademark, it is the Trademark office that determines if the business or person filing for the trademark registration is entitled to it, NOT US.


5) Our examination and investigation of businesses filing trademarks with our name Monster is normal processes for any company having a trademark that they want to protect. We know we don't own the word Monster; however like any other trademark holder we do have the right and need to protect our Monster brand when it is in danger of being diluted, tarnished, or infringed.


6) The federal trademark law says that we are required to police our marks and enforce them or we will lose them, or risk weakening them. We didn’t make these rules. Congress and years of Supreme Court rulings have determined the rules of the game. This type of protection is authorized by federal and state statutes (referred to as anti-dilution laws) designed to prevent the weakening of a famous mark's reputation. For more information, you may want to check out: Nolo Press (http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/E24CD50D-14DE-4364-AC615684D93E6CBE/catID/D8932879-DC34-43DF-BF65FC92D55FEE5D#18C5EF1D-16AD-4F2A-B7EF7D691972BE58)


7) Anyone can use a trademark without having the trademark registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, as long as it doesn’t infringe or dilute someone else’s trademark. This is referred to as a common law trademark. There are many trademarks that exist under common law rights.


In the case of Snow Monsters, we have NEVER sued them, and we are not trying to harm their company. I think that their products are great and don’t cause us any problems, I have written them and told them so. They are also using the word “monster” for characters, not as a brand, which is how we use Monster. Please, see the list of our trademarks below that I have provided for you.


8) I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, and would never engage in a lawsuit that was frivolous. 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.


9) The newspaper articles and other rumors that said we sued the Chicago Bears, Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park, or a Cajun restaurant are all untrue. We have NEVER filed any lawsuits or other actions against them. Don’t just take our word for it, do a search of the court records, and the USPTO database, and we can guarantee that you will find that we have not sued (or even filed trademark oppositions) against these companies.


10) There are millions of Monster fans who love our company and love our products. My passion for the products 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 am very sad indeed to see misinformation out there as it wrongfully portrays the company to be a corporate bully, when nothing could be further from the truth.

If anyone wants to talk with me about this, or if this email does not answer your questions, please email me at monsterinformation@monstercable.com. Although I may not get back to you immediately since I am currently on travel, I will get back to you.

In the meantime, I ask everyone not to prejudge until you know all of the facts.

Hope this clears things up for you. We merely want to protect the trademarks that it has taken me 25 years of hard work to build.

If anyone else is under a wrong impression about our intention otherwise, please feel free to pass this on.

Monsterously yours,


Noel Lee
The Head Monster
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
Doh.

Anyone who knows our company, or me personally, knows that we are not that kind of company, and I am not that kind of person. The information out there is categorically untrue.
Irrelevant commentary. 'Filler' that attempts to establish a feeling of trust into the writer by interjecting positive spin ideas that may or may not be true.


Being a champion of the entrepreneur, and having started Monster in a garage with no money myself, I would be the last person to want to stop someone who had a legitimate right to use a trade name for their business. Those who know me and have met me, know that we have built a fantastic company from nothing through sheer hard work and a lot of sweat equity. You can check out our story at: http://monstercable.com/company_info/ and http://www.monsterparksf.com/info/WhoIsMonster.asp
Attempt to further the postive spin -- which again is completely irrelevant to the cases at hand.

I have even spoken at several colleges about how to become an entrepreneur, and value these opportunities. In fact, my parents were on one of the last boats out of China during its civil war. I truly have lived the American dream, and I am not going to prevent others from achieving it. I feel fortunate to have been born an American.
Wow. So far a lot of nothing has been written...
Snow Monsters mistakenly portrayed that our objection to their attempt to register trademarks was a lawsuit, which isn’t true. We have not sued Snow Monsters. We would never try to harm a company whose focus is on ski education programs and products for children.
Ok. Credibility automaticly rejected. Snowmonsters never claimed that Monster had sued them. Why is MONSTER CABLE, whom is concerned so much with accuracy in an article, all of a sudden so relaxed about this condition when it comes to themselves?


In fact, Monster is a big supporter of programs for children. You can see what we have recently done with kids at Monster Park. http://www.monsterparksf.com/fun/Photos.asp
More irrelevant information. Merely an attempt at spinning positive, likely(I suspect) to be intended to make Monster Cable seem like the good guy being beat up upon...


Before you form any negative impressions of my company or how I have directed it, permit me to straighten out some of the misconceptions.
This should be fun...

1) We do not have any trademark infringement lawsuits pending, and we do not object or take action against businesses just because they sell products that have “Monster” in their names.
Sly. Indeed, this is usually true. Notice that they said "products that have 'Monster' in their names". However, this does not fully explain the lawsuits against Disney's Monster, Inc. and Scooby Doo and The Monster of Mexico. Does Monster consider movies to not be a product?


If we did, we would never be able to run our business, not to mention the financial burden would crush us. We have better things to do than spend this kind of money and time.
Wow again. Now we are expanding on a technical point that is being used to mislead, since they specifically defined/qualified it in the prior statement.


2) There are over 1,100 registered “Monster” trademarks in the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, and probably hundreds more that are unregistered. We don’t have any intention of suing them or taking any action against them. These marks have been allowed by the Trademark Office, just as our 50+ marks in the various classes listed below.
Okay. Their is no reason to examine or research the detaiils of this statement. Since at the moment(and what caused this media attention) the only cases of active known relevance are Snowmonsters.com and MonsterVintage.com.


4) Trademark registrations and trademark oppositions are decided by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, not us. Even if we do object to a particular filing to register a trademark, it is the Trademark office that determines if the business or person filing for the trademark registration is entitled to it, NOT US.
Good show! But yet Monster did not seek to wait for any 'decision' on behalf of the Trademark Office before seeking action(s) legally against the supposed Trademark infringers at subject here.

We know we don't own the word Monster; however like any other trademark holder we do have the right and need to protect our Monster brand when it is in danger of being diluted, tarnished, or infringed.
Common sense appears to be Monster's true shortcoming. Monster Cable, please explain why or how an average person would mistake SnowMonsters.com or monstervintage.com outlets with affilation of your company? Unless you think you somehow own the word 'monster', I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that these companies are of any consequence to your business. Perhaps a single word explains it: arrogance.

6) The federal trademark law says that we are required to police our marks and enforce them or we will lose them, or risk weakening them. We didn’t make these rules. Congress and years of Supreme Court rulings have determined the rules of the game. This type of protection is authorized by federal and state statutes (referred to as anti-dilution laws) designed to prevent the weakening of a famous mark's reputation.
Of course, Monster is operating from their own subjective interpretation of what is considered 'dilution'. If they have the mentality that they own the word 'monster'; then to them any use of the word commercially that is not their own is a dilution to them. Monster appears to be operating from the premise that the word 'monster' is recognized by the general person as a consequence of Monster Cable. But can Monster Cable be THIS arrogant?


In the case of Snow Monsters, we have NEVER sued them, and we are not trying to harm their company. I think that their products are great and don’t cause us any problems, I have written them and told them so.

So you want them to give over rights of their company brand/trademarks and then pay you to use them as well as require your approval for anything they do so that you can HELP them?

They are also using the word “monster” for characters, not as a brand, which is how we use Monster.
Hmm. Someone correct me if I am wrong: the word 'monster' would obviously be used in noun form as part of a character description in most cases. The Cookie Monster, the Swamp Monster, the Green-eyed Monster, etc. etc. etc. I mean, a 'monster' is typically a character! Hey, Monster Cable, hello?


8) I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, and would never engage in a lawsuit that was frivolous. 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.
Is this an attempt to make Monster seem justified by stating the obvious? But it appears that the main plan in these cases is to keep the case from going to court by the formal precedings/inquiries, which done on a massive caliber and at great expense, that as a result cause a compnay like Snowmonsters.com or Monstervintage.com to crumble not from lack of merit, but from monetary shortcomings...

Hope this clears things up for you. We merely want to protect the trademarks that it has taken me 25 years of hard work to build.
Nothing has been cleared up. Mr. Lee, you have already summed the issue. If you could simply understand your own words, you would be a great guy. Refer to:

Noel Lee: We know we don't own the word Monster

-Chris
 
Last edited:
FLZapped

FLZapped

Audioholic
Steve1000 said:
1) We do not have any trademark infringement lawsuits pending, and we do not object or take action against businesses just because they sell products that have “Monster” in their names. If we did, we would never be able to run our business, not to mention the financial burden would crush us. We have better things to do than spend this kind of money and time.

3) We have not sued or filed actions against the hundreds of companies that are using the word Monster. So if anyone is representing this to you, they are not right and should be corrected.

5) Our examination and investigation of businesses filing trademarks with our name Monster is normal processes for any company having a trademark that they want to protect. We know we don't own the word Monster; however like any other trademark holder we do have the right and need to protect our Monster brand when it is in danger of being diluted, tarnished, or infringed.
Sounds like a direct contradiction to me....

In the case of Snow Monsters, we have NEVER sued them, and we are not trying to harm their company. I think that their products are great and don’t cause us any problems, I have written them and told them so. They are also using the word “monster” for characters, not as a brand, which is how we use Monster. Please, see the list of our trademarks below that I have provided for you.


9) The newspaper articles and other rumors that said we sued the Chicago Bears, Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park, or a Cajun restaurant are all untrue. We have NEVER filed any lawsuits or other actions against them. Don’t just take our word for it, do a search of the court records, and the USPTO database, and we can guarantee that you will find that we have not sued (or even filed trademark oppositions) against these companies.

Noel Lee
The Head Monster[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm, maybe they haven't sued the companies listed in that last paragraph, nor yet sued some of the other companies mentioned elswhere, but they most certainly HAVE strongarmed them.

From the San Fransico Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/08/BUG1J9N3C61.DTL&type=business

Lawsuite filed against Monstervintage.com:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1698908.php

One where the little guy won!

http://www.madmartian.com/legal/

And finally, here is the one on Snowmonsters:

http://www.snowmonsters.com/MonsterCable/truelies.html

What a bunch of first class skatholes....if you do a google search the list goes on and on and on....

-Bruce
 
S

Soundloop

Audiophyte
Please feel free to download and use these attached icons on your site or blog to link to relevant info.

$$ talks.

Cheers,

TC
 

Attachments

C

Cozmo

Audioholic
Hts ?

I was looking into purchasing an HTS2500 or 3500 based on the review in this site when I chanced upon this post. However, now I will be looking elsewhere.

Can someone here refer me to some other choices out there? I even wrote to monster customer service asking some ?s about there HTS systems over a week ago with no reply yet.... :mad:
 
C

Cozmo

Audioholic
Surge Protection

Thanks Mark. I was looking at those and some by Panamax. Any experience with Panamax out there?
 
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
Assuming it's legit, it looks like Snow Monsters and MC have apparently settled the issue. Either they're backing away somewhat or have come to a pretty favorable arrangement.

It looks like an issue of the 'net bring enough attention to this issue that MC's pr machine has to spin into high gear. No one wants to look like they're picking on a company as noble as Snow Monster. ;)
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
Nice.

But not sufficient. What about the next time Monster(or some other compnay like Monster) starts to act as if they OWN common words?

Wonder if Monster settled the issue(s) with Monstervintage as well, since Snowmonster and Monstervintage have been mentioned in nearly all of the same press together....

-Chris

Rob Babcock said:
Assuming it's legit, it looks like Snow Monsters and MC have apparently settled the issue. Either they're backing away somewhat or have come to a pretty favorable arrangement.

It looks like an issue of the 'net bring enough attention to this issue that MC's pr machine has to spin into high gear. No one wants to look like they're picking on a company as noble as Snow Monster. ;)
 
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
It also sorta looks like Jack asked for everyone's help but is now backpeddling, probably d/t some sweet deal with Monster. He got everyone all stirred up, but now that his slice of the pie is safe, he wants everyone to just let it go. ;) Unfortunately, I haven't heard of MonsterVintage getting any such kid-glove treatment from MC and their goons. Unless I just missed it.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top