Let's look at real examples of IP issues that have occured:
1. Tylenol. The usage of the word went from identification of a brand to identification of a medicine type. The company was in danger of losing its identity, and created public campaigns to dissuade people from referring to any product that treats allergies, colds, coughs, and flus as Tylenol. They never attempted to trademark the words acetaminophen, also known as paracetamol, because it's a common compound found in other medicinal applications.
2. Xerox. They were forced to defend their brand when time pretty much turned the action of photocopying a document into the verb xerox. The word even appears in the Oxford English dictionary! They have, for decades, had a campaign to stop the use of their trademarked brand name as a verb, but have had a difficult time accomplishing the desired end goal. This is a classic example of losing brand identity; when a uniquely-named brand becomes so commonplace that it no longer refers to the brand but rather the action of the brand's product. The problem is, once it refers to the action and not the company, any other company with a competing product is performing the SAME EXACT action.
Monster Cable is different from both of these examples for the following obvious reasons:
1. People have formed a brand loyalty over the years. More people specifically refer to their preferred brand of medication rather than an overarching descriptive word. People who say "Do you have an Advil?" today typically want exactly that, in contrast to 20 years ago when "Do you have a Tylenol?" meant "Do you have any medicine I can take for my headache?" Tylenol differentiating itself, through marketing and brand education, have retained the uniqueness of their brand without resorting to suing other medicine companies. This argument goes towards brand identity for a UNIQUE AND IDENTIFIABLE intellectual property, which Monster Cable, when trying to argue the brand uniqueness of Monster, is not.
2. No one refers to interconnecting cables as Monsters. When was the last time you heard anyone say "Hey Bob, can you had me those Monsters over there?" while referring to a set of interconnects from Belkin or Impact Acoustics? However, I'm sure it's been said "Hey Bob, hand me that HDMI cable." In comparison, plenty of people have said "Can you xerox this document for me?" when they really meant "Can you copy this document for me?" This clearly defeats the argument about losing brand identity to competing brands in Monster Cable's case. Monster Cable did not trademark the word Cable because THEY CAN'T. Why should they be allowed to trademark the word Monster when it is also a commonly used word meant to express:
–noun 1. a legendary animal combining features of animal and human form or having the forms of various animals in combination, as a centaur, griffin, or sphinx.
2. any creature so ugly or monstrous as to frighten people.
3. any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character.
4. a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.
5. any animal or thing huge in size.
6. Biology. a. an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure, as from marked malformation or the absence of certain parts or organs.
b. a grossly anomalous fetus or infant, esp. one that is not viable.
7. anything unnatural or monstrous.
–adjective 8. huge; enormous; monstrous: a monster tree.
Origin:
1250–1300; ME monstre < L mōnstrum portent, unnatural event, monster, equiv. to mon(ēre) to warn + -strum n. suffix
Related forms:
monster-like, adjective
Synonyms:
4. fiend, brute, demon, devil, miscreant.
I'll end this rant with a few key facts. A quick search on Google, not to be mistaken with the brand-identity-killing verbs "google", "googling", and "googled", for monster returned a page full of Monster.com affiliates, a Monsters Vs. Aliens video, Monster Energy brand of drinks, and one link to Monster Cable. If the common word monster was so closely related to the brand Monster Cable, why don't we get pages full of results linking to Monster Cable products and reviews?
If someone creates a business called Monster Anything, and they are in the business of selling cables, THEN I could see where Noel Lee's company stands and I would agree with it. In keeping with Monster Cable's spirit, I have a suggestion to teach them a lesson.
Let's fund Jim Henson so he can sue Monster Cable for the use of Monster. See, Cookie Monster was created in 1967, and first appeared on Sesame Street in 1969. Monster Cable Products Inc., owner of Monster Cable, was founded in 1979, 10 years after Henson's lovable blue beast appeared on TV. Jim Henson, by Monster Cable logic, has EVERY RIGHT to sue Noel Lee!
