PDA

View Full Version : Let's be a proactive force for the little guy



ThomasW
10-19-2004, 11:35 AM
People may have seen the nonsense regarding Monster Cable legal action's against anyone has the word "monster" in their name.

Here's a list of the law suits Monster Cable is/was involved in (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&pno=&qs=monster+cable+products&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=). Please note that there are 5 pages of actions listed

This includes little mom and pop used clothing store (http://monstervintage.com/#monstercable). A guy with a costume store with a single webpage that had monster in the URL (http://www.madmartian.com/legal/), because that particular wepage was where he showed the monster costumes.

Monster Cable is a law suit machine. Anyone with a conscience should IMO boycott all products sold by that company, Boycott all retailers that sell Monster Cable products (Parts Express excluded of course :wink: ), and cancel all subscriptions to publications that accept advertizing for Monster Cable products.

People taking any or all of these actions is asked to notify Monster Cable of your actions, and why you took that action.

Irene Baran, Chief Operating Officer
ibaran@Monstercable.com
Monster Cable Products, Inc.
455 Valley Drive
Brisbane, CA 94005
415-840-2000

David Tognotti, General Counsel
legal@monstercable.com
Monster Cable Products, Inc.
455 Valley Drive,
Brisbane, CA 94005
PH:1.415.840.2000
FX: 1.415.468.0310

Press Contact:
Charles Leib, PR Monster
cleib@monstercable.com
Phone: (602) 300-0900

David Meek
10-19-2004, 12:37 PM
And people wonder why I'm such a cynic. :evil:

Kevin P
10-19-2004, 12:52 PM
I haven't bought a Monster product in years. Not because of the frivilous lawsuits, but because their products are overpriced and mediocre.

Gordon Moore
10-19-2004, 06:19 PM
Good God, they're going/went after Monster Garage....I don't think I'd be messin' with Jessie James.

He'll turn a Volkswagon beetle into an amoured assult vehicle and bye-bye Monster Cable Inc.

Another interesting thing I noticed is that some of the lawsuits come from Monster Attitude (tm) and Monster Money (tm) which I guess is fitting ;)

purplepeople
10-19-2004, 07:04 PM
Makes you wonder if Noel Lee and Amar Bose are partners?

:)ensen.

ThomasW
10-19-2004, 07:27 PM
Actually Bose sued Monster for the use of the word "LightWave"

Gorden,

They also went after Monster House. Maybe the Monster house crew could pay Noel Lee a visit at his home ......... :roflmao:

Prozakk
10-19-2004, 08:01 PM
F-monster!

I paid $180 for 2 opticals, & they wouldn't stay in the components. For that price they d*mn well better stay into any components jacks!!!

Chris D
10-19-2004, 08:31 PM
You've got to be kidding me. How can you put a copyright on one common english word? What's next? Are they going to sue Pixar for Monsters Inc? Or sue me if I write in a post that a big amplifier is a monster? Sue Sesame Street for Cookie Monster?

Chris D
10-19-2004, 08:33 PM
Wait, wait wait... I just read the list, and saw that they're suing the Chicago Bears for "Monsters of Midway".

Yeah... not that the Bears have been around for DECADES longer than this little company.

They're also suing Hanna Barbera for a Scooby Doo Episode, "The Monster of Mexico". No, no... they got it all wrong. It's RONSTER, not MONSTER! :)

purplepeople
10-19-2004, 08:46 PM
Oh my god, they've created a monster! (TM).

:)ensen.

Danbry39
10-19-2004, 09:07 PM
Great thread!!!

By the way, efforts such as those suggested do work.

One of the suits has been dismissed and an apology from Monster received for launching the suit to begin with. And, why??? Because Monster got a bunch of messages threatening to never buy their products again.

Here's a LINK. (http://www.madmartian.com/legal/) to the company that had been sued. Very interesting to read Monster's lawyer's comments as well as Monster's letter of apology. Links to both are at the site I've linked.

Danbry39
10-19-2004, 09:16 PM
Also great is the company's response back to Monster. Make SURE you read the last line. It's a hoot. It reads, in part:

I understand your need to protect your trademark. Unfortunately, you chose one of the most commonly used words in the Halloween industry to represent your company. People were having monster nightmares before wire existed. You cannot commandeer the word from the English language. Here is some research I did for my response to the case:

Number of live registered trademarks for the word "monster": 20
Number of live registered trademarks containing the word "monster": 471

Number of domain names containing the word "monster" (domainsurfer.com): 6,619
Number of domain names that start with the word "monster" (domainsurfer.com): 3,303

Number of hits from a search for "monster" on google.com: about 5,950,000
Number of hits from a search for "monster cable" on google.com: about 126,000

Number of hits from a search for "monster shop" without "monster cable" on google.com: 768
Number of hits from a search for "monster shop" with "monster cable" on google.com: 1

Number of books on BarnesandNoble.com resulting from a search for "monster": 5,734
Number of books on BarnesandNoble.com about Monster Cable Products Inc: Zero

Number of movies with "monster" in the title as per IMDB.com: 285
Number of movies with "monster" in the plot description as per IMDB.com: 438
Number of movies with "monster" as a keyword as per IMDB.com: 723
Number of movies about Monster Cable Products Inc: Zero

Number of times "monster" appears in the script for Young Frankenstein: 185
Number of times Monster Cable Products Inc is referenced in the script for Young Frankenstein: Zero

Number of children who imagined there was a monster under the bed: probably millions
Number of children who imagined there was an audio interconnect cable under the bed: probably none.

Glen B
10-19-2004, 09:43 PM
I haven't bought a Monster product in years. Not because of the frivilous lawsuits, but because their products are overpriced and mediocre.

Same here. Exactly my sentiments also.

ThomasW
10-19-2004, 11:44 PM
Are they going to sue Pixar for Monsters Inc? They did, here's (http://www.madmartian.com/legal/disney_complaint.pdf) a copy of their complaint.

One can see a link at the very bottom of the www.monster.com website as a result of legal action again them by Monster Cable.

If it's published on the web and a URL contains the word "Monster", they file a complaint.

As a joke Steve Eddy registered the name MonsterCableSux.com after he found out that MonsterCable itself registered the name MonsterCableSucks.com.

If several hundred each month people registered a domain name containing the word "Monster" their lawyers would go insane trying to keep up with the legal actions and it would eventually hit the mainstream press. Then Monster's actions would come back and bite them in the *ss ..:roflmao:

Last time this hit the net, MonsterCable got off easy after withdrawing the suit against the costume guy. With the new action against MonsterVintage.com there are numerous websites with threads like this. So Monster is going to get an AMAZING amount of extremely bad publicity. And this time they won't be able to undo the damage....

aarsoe
10-20-2004, 04:01 AM
Guy's there are many wonderfull things in the US - but your legal system obviously have flaws. The right to sue anyone and everyone is one of them.
So agree - will send them a couple of mails or two.

Oh - and Danbry. Think your wrong about the kids dreaming about cables being zero - I often dream of them... ;-)

brendon
10-20-2004, 07:24 AM
A little off topic but in the same vein,A company in the US is suing Australian manufacturers for using the Ugg boot name .These boots made of sheep skin (and of questionable taste) have been made in Australia for well over twenty years and are a generic name for the boot.A US maker has trademarked the name and is telling the Australian inventors and manufacturers they cant use it any more .
A pox on lawyers where ever they Lurk!!
Brendon

Peterc4c
10-28-2004, 03:38 PM
Somehow, I have this suspesion that the lawyers in question are working on contingencie. Basicly, Monster Cable let the free lawyers go after anybody they want and give them a percent of what ever money they happend to extort from these people.

especially this sentence:
"Monster Cable's Attorney then asked if I could come up with $1000.00. And then went on to say they also required 1% of the gross business yearly income"

I was a victum of that kind of pratice a couple of years ago

Peter

ht_addict
10-28-2004, 08:59 PM
Until your politicians change the laws it's not only Monster who'll sue to protect their name, even if they have to sue the Mom and Pop companies. Monsters only doing what US law allows them. Will these lawsuits influence my decision to buy or not to buy Monster Cable products? NOPE! Just got me a new Monster HTPS7000 last week to go with my Monster AVS 2000.

ht_addict

Lex
10-28-2004, 10:20 PM
EVERYONE, please stay on topic, that means leaving what cables you bought or are planning to buy out of this. The topic is straightforward, please stay on topic. PERIOD.

No exceptions.

ht_addict
10-28-2004, 11:55 PM
EVERYONE, please stay on topic, that means leaving what cables you bought or are planning to buy out of this. The topic is straightforward, please stay on topic. PERIOD.

No exceptions.

Thanks for changing your previous reply that singled me out. :T

ht_addict

Lex
10-29-2004, 12:19 AM
it was never my intent to single anyone out ht_addict. I many times don't read but what's most current. When you try to keep an eye on the entire forum, sometimes, that is all I have time to do, please keep that in mind in the future when I may respond to something that seems discremenatory. I am not discreminatory, hell, I don't even know how to spell it. I try to treat everyone the same in my responses.

Lex

George Bellefontaine
10-29-2004, 12:01 PM
That's discriminatory, Lex . :B

JOY DIVISION
10-31-2004, 05:44 AM
Monster Cable is not as smart as Bill Gates, since they have not integrated their stuff on electronics at all. They're overpriced and crap out at times, maybe they should bundle their products for people to try, which is obvious that none would be picked up. <comment deleted by admin. While funny, not appropriate for this forum>

H.Donald
10-31-2004, 07:50 AM
The truth about Monster cable is that most anyone who has used one of their products and then tries another brand reaches the common conclusion......
they are over-priced,over-hyped and under-performing.They are aimed at masses who shop at B.B. and C.C.
This is not to say that all their products are terrible,but for same cost and less there is much better.
As for their lawsuits...well they come across like a bunch of mobsters,which is how our laws allows them to be.Remember Spike Lee's lawsuit against the cable network Spike?A judge issued an injuction holding up the start up of an entire network until the case was settled out of court.Spike tv is now on my cable system...and Spike Lee was most likely paid a sum.Apparently he owns the name Spike.So if any of you out there are thinking of naming your dog..don't use Spike.

DrJRapp
11-01-2004, 07:16 PM
You've got to be kidding me. How can you put a copyright on one common english word? What's next? Are they going to sue Pixar for Monsters Inc? Or sue me if I write in a post that a big amplifier is a monster? Sue Sesame Street for Cookie Monster?

Believe it or not Bill Gates tried to copyright the word Windows. Can you just imaging how many law suits that would have generated?

purplepeople
11-02-2004, 12:40 AM
IIRC, Microsoft was not able to copyright Windows because the terminology was in prior use for the Macintosh OS and even earlier with the Xerox GUI. Even so, the term has become so well known as the Microsoft GUI that one Linux company was forced to change its name from Lindows. Even though the heavyweight won that fight, it's actually a good example of not showing up second with a blatant rip-off name.

Monster Cable's problem is that they've shown up long after Frankenstein, King Kong and Godzilla, who all have a much bigger claim to the word. I'll bet the only reason they keep up the litigation is so that it prevents others from using the name in an advertisement. Eg. Our cable is better than Monster's.

What I want to know is whether www.monster.com can prevent Monster Cable from publicly advertising for employment.

:)ensen.

Chris D
11-04-2004, 12:20 AM
Hmmm... On HALLOWEEN, I was watching home movies, including one of an old girlfriend in the boxing gym. Man, you should see my EX BOX! (So sweaty, she wasn't a very KLEEN EX) Suddenly, I looked out my WINDOWS and thought I saw a MONSTER. Not, so, though, it was only a black CAT, forecasting my impending DOOM.

purplepeople
11-04-2004, 02:07 AM
A video of a sweaty ex has got to rank as one of the lethal SAF items anyone could own. Are you sure it's safe to even mention it in public?

:)ensen.

Bing Fung
11-04-2004, 08:21 AM
I can't belive Monster Cables is pulling this crap...

What a POS company :frypan:

gymguymass
11-04-2004, 11:29 AM
I guess if one is big enough they can "bully" anyone they so choose. As a marketing concept, the name "MONSTER" may be very effective, but I think they chose a word that is far too common. Hopefully common sense will prevail in the courts and Monster Cable will be forced to pay ALL the expenses for the small mom and pop businesses as the case is tossed out of court.

David Meek
11-09-2004, 01:59 PM
I wonder if they've filed on REM for their album Monster?

Because of this kind of mentality, I'll absolutely go as far out of my way as I have to in order to keep from EVER owning any more of Monster's products (I had their in-wall rated speaker cable in my old house).

Je*ks. . . . :M

ThomasW
11-19-2004, 03:09 PM
Not politically correct but does express Steve Eddy's view of Monster :B
<below converted to link by admin, not appropriate for all viewers, nor endorsed by management of this forum>
http://www.q-audio.com/images/monsterthugs.jpg

bandit788
11-26-2004, 10:46 PM
OMG, I cannot believe what I am reading!!!! Wait a minute, I'm educated, I can!!! We put these people in office, oh, we have no other choice.
Let's see, we can vote:
A.)Lawyer
B.)Lawyer
C.)MovieStar
D.)Lawyer
They have all the Billions, and they make it off of us before they run for office, then they can continue to run for office and insure the survival of the lawyer species by creating laws that alow them to sue for using the word MONSTER!!! I have used this word well before Monster Cable existed. I will buy RatShack and listen to static before I buy Monster, go CatCable!!!!
Shane (Not all lawyer's suck, just most of them)
Disclaimer: Any lawyer reading this who wants to file claim against me for saying you suck, you really don't suck, I meant somebody else!!

audioqueso
12-19-2004, 11:22 AM
I'm going to patent the word "ultra" and sue Monster Cables for using that word in every single piece of their products. :D

murphy3414
12-20-2004, 09:52 PM
My holiday greeting to good old Irene.





Hello Irene,

I recently spent several hundred dollars on your cable products along with some new A/V equipment. Since that purchase I have learned of your many filed lawsuits against innocent companies, businesses, and decent people regarding the use of the "WORD". I would like to inform you that my purchase of your product has since been returned and replace with a competitors products at a significantly lower cost.

I am closely monitoring the status of the before mentioned lawsuits, and will do my part to discourage the purchase, in any way, of your products whenever possible.

Happy Holidays.

ThomasW
12-28-2004, 02:26 PM
One of the 'little' guys is p*ssed. They're taking on MonsterCable in Federal court, and have demanded a trial by a jury. This should be VERY interesing ........ :T

SnowMonsters vs MonsterCable (http://www.snowmonsters.com/monstercable/pdfs/snowmonstersvsmonstercable.pdf)

David Meek
12-28-2004, 03:29 PM
Hmmm, can't even get to the site, much less the PDF.

ThomasW
12-28-2004, 04:03 PM
Maybe their server is overloaded, this info was originally posted at AA.

Edit: The pdf is back online. I saved a copy just in case....

David Meek
12-28-2004, 05:15 PM
That's very interesting. I hope they take a major bite out of Monstercable's a**. Pun intended.

ThomasW
01-01-2005, 03:15 PM
Wow 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O ,

Ray Kimber (yes THE Ray Kimber) once a friend of Monster's Noel Lee has just posted this statement about the boycott Monster cable .


Dear All, (Permission to copy and/or cross post this, without editing, is granted)

There have been some murmurs that my opposition and criticism of Monster Cable is self serving. I would like to respond and give a more complete reason and response for my opposition to Monster Cable

I didn't jump to any conclusions about Monster Cable's behavior toward Snow Monsters until after I had called and talked to both parties, and challenged them both. The result was that I looked at postings of "real" documents on the web that, in my opinion, leave Monster Cable trying to now float a public relations “cover story” that is increasingly difficult for anyone to swallow.

I wonder how many who are reading this will have seen the 1999 article from Forbes Magazine? (If not, send me your mailing address by private email and I will send you one, it is copyrighted, so it shouldn’t be PDF’d but I have some authorized reprints from Forbes) In it, Kimber Kable and Straight Wire were both splattered by the same paint as Monster Cable. While the article was from a few years ago, it is STILL being referenced by current postings and I recently had a reporter call me, out of the blue, regarding the re-naming of Candlestick Park, due to the linking of Kimber Kable and Monster Cable in the Forbes article.

Since my name and company and industry continue to be linked to Monster Cable I have an interest in what is being said, along with worry of how all AV cable companies might be tarnished by industry association with Monster Cable. The Snow Monsters issue came to my attention via someone who thought we and Monster Cable were the same thing! Until a few days ago I didn’t have ANY knowledge of the very existence of Monster Vintage, The Sesame Street Monster Workshop or Monster Away. Nor did it EVER cross my mind that Monster Garage, Monsters Inc, Monster.com or Monster Trucks had anything to do with each other OR with Monster Cable. Certainly I didn’t form negative opinions about any of the above entities by name association with each other, or mistake one for the other

There are many, no, make that VERY many things that Noel as a person and Monster Cable as a company have accomplished in a very positive way, but..., now I have both heartbreak and heartburn over what is happening, I don't understand, Noel's/Monster Cable’s tactics, it "looks" bad and I worry that folks will decide that the whole darn specialty cable business is the same. Monster Cable is, by my reckoning, larger than ALL of us competitors COMBINED! That gives Noel a "bully pulpit", but his apparent behavior as a bully is doing terrible harm to him, his company and my/our industry.

Monster Cable makes some great products, no question and no argument from me. But HOW they are selling them pisses me off, not because it cuts into Kimber Kable sales, it doesn't (explained below). It pisses me off because I think it is just flat wrong. One example: Using the driving of Noel's sports cars as an incentive to sell more Monster Cable. The result has been two-fold. More cable was sold. And! There were folks who likely had NEVER driven a high performance car that were turned loose in an unfamiliar car, on unfamiliar PUBLIC roads with a "just met" MC employee as co-pilot/chaperone. I hope/suppose that there were “ground rules”, but sheesh! what could anyone expect?, that these sales folks were motivated to sell more Monster Cable with the goal of driving a dream performance car like Aunt Mable drives her Buick? Uh huh?!? Well, the Forbes article talks about an incident that went wrong, very wrong. When does a sales incentive, by amount and extent, go from "compensating" to "corrupting"?

The reason that Monster Cable doesn't much compete with Kimber Kable is that we don't sell in the same stores, and wouldn't even try. The folks that go to Radio Shack (now selling Monster Cable, BTW) to buy a VCR don't need, and don't deserve to be pitched on, special wire of any kind. That customer’s needs and expectations are COMPLETELY met with ordinary products. If the compensation and pressure to sell that customer "special wires" is high enough then sales WILL certainly be made. But I won't pay that extent of incentive AND won't apply that kind of pressure to Kimber Kable dealers to make THAT kind of sale. I wouldn't be able to explain such sales to my mom and I wouldn't want such sales methods directed at my mom. Sometimes it is good to apply the “mommy test” to situations to see if it is OK.

My anger and opposition to Monster Cable has nuthin' to do with Monster Cable products and everything to do with how pissed I am at overselling and the corrupting influence of incentives and pressure that are WAY WAY WAY out of proportion. Not to mention the ridiculous trademark actions. You don’t see Mother’s Car Wax going after Mother Teresa, now do ya?

Most electronics consumers don't need fancy cables, mine or anyone else’s!!! It is only when the natural interest and knowledge of the consumer correlates with equipment that will compliment the fancy cable that such a sale should be considered. The rewards and pressure to sell Monster Cable are evidently so high as to override the good sense of the seller as to which customer REALLY should be EVER be pitched.

I have NEVER!!! bought a power protection bar, Monster Cable’s or otherwise to go with my consumer electronics hardware purchases. My knowledge of the usual good power line quality and that hardware (even the cheap stuff) is pretty resilient to a little power junk AND!

my knowledge that if I REALLY TRULY did need some protection that I couldn't buy it for $100.00

makes me NOT a target for such sales. I have the knowledge that if I'm buying a $199.00 VCR I won't gain (and shouldn't expect) any useful increase in performance from any power bar or fancy cables. Without that knowledge I don’t want to be a target, like an unaware fish, to be hooked with some bait.

I don't like the idea of having my family and friends sold something/anything because they didn't know enough to form a sensible purchase decision. I don't want any Kimber Kable dealer to make such a sale of my product. I would be kidding myself if I laid out huge incentives to sell Kimber Kable and then imagined that ONLY folks who understood and appreciated fancy cables would be sold Uh Huh ?!? Well, EVERY customer is someone’s friend or family, they deserve to be treated as such.

So, will a boycott of Monster Cable shift all those sales to Kimber Kable, nope, cuz, my mom wouldn't "get it" if I tried to explain why it should. What would/should happen is that just-as-good-for-the-application less expensive product, like Belkin, Panamax, WestPenn or Carol, will be sold instead, at a much lower price. AND by eliminating the high pressure and high rewards the sales will drop to levels that more closely match the needs and expectations of the customer. So a boycott of Monster Cable, in my opinion, won't and shouldn't shift “real” sales to me or any other fancy cable company. What it will do is STOP the over-selling of, albeit fine, products. Remove the artificial props of, what looks to me like, PAYOLA!, and the over-reaching sales will evaporate and not be “shifted” to me or anyone else.

If Monster Cable's tactics are as bad as they appear regarding Snow Monsters, Monster Vintage and Monster Away, then I think they should stop it now AND go back and un-do some stuff, give back previous arm-twisted trademarks and agreements, and make amends to all others that were beat up. (BTW, Monster Away was a water pistol to be sold to children so they could give a little Monster Away squirt under the bed before they went to sleep. Monster Cable opposed the trademark application?!? I looked at the list of actions in the Trademark office, seems to me like Monster Cable just flat wore them out of money and/or will and/or spirit)

Noel/Monster Cable seems not to have learned much from the damning 1998 Forbes article. It won't be enough for me to just have Monster Cable just say "sorry" to Snow Monsters, because I truly believe that they will just continue on their merry way and view an occasional "sorry" as a cost of business. I want to see a "righting" of past "wrongs" and a removal of either Monster Cable's will or means to mount future over-reaching sales tactics and over-reaching trademark tactics.

So, I am going to ask Monster Cable folks some questions. I have already sent Dave Tognotti (Monster Cable’s Attorney) an email on 12/28/2004, no answer yet. I have been, and am going to be further, alerting friends and family to the www.stopthemonster.com site. I will say something, and why, to folks in the stores that are selling Monster Cable.

I am super uncomfortable with taking a stand against Monster Cable, not my style, and it would be perfectly logical for someone to view my opposition as self serving. But I can’t stand by quietly any longer and still be able to explain to my mom why I didn’t speak up.

It sucks that good products need to boycotted in order to stop the overselling and to choke off the profits that finance attacks on Snow Monsters and such.

My bottom line and sincere opinion is; I want to see Monster Cable stop the hurtful damage they are doing, apologize and make amends, correct past similar situations and further; to pay some significant Penitence.

Kind regards,

Ray Kimber (Permission to copy and/or cross post this, without editing, is granted)

P.S. Penitence = Quiet millions to a music program makes more sense to me, and is more relevant to our industry, than a name on a stadium. I would be happy to help Noel make some choices of programs

Here's a LINK (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/1228/6214066a_print.html) to the Forbes article Ray talks about

bandit788
01-04-2005, 10:07 PM
What a very informative and insightful post. I could buy all day long from someone who thinks like a regular person, and I will. I turn my nose up at Monster Cable products, everywhere I go, and in the last week I have had to explain why to several people. I guess my disgust is sensed by those carrying the Monster Products, what a shame. For as long as a "Monster" company like this exist, I will make it my personnel mission to inform everyone that I come into contact with.
Shane

David Meek
01-05-2005, 09:26 AM
It's honest, publicly stated and (especially) informed opinions like this one from Mr. Kimber that give me hope that not all of us are money-grubbing sociopaths. Thanks to Thomas for forwarding this, and many, many thanks to Ray Kimber for taking a stand.

ThomasW
01-11-2005, 02:03 AM
This is getting to be the twilight zone. Note the change in this wesite http://www.stopthemonster.com/ And this posted in a link at the top of the SnowMonsters.com website.



10 January 2005

Letter from Jack Turner

Noel Lee, the founder and president of Monster Cable and I have been in serious but cordial discussions over the last several weeks only to discover that we have mutual interests, goals, and respect for each other's work.

At the same time, we are both ardent defenders of our companies, trademarks, and our pride. After all, you have to be a spirited person (some would say crazy) to be an entrepreneur in the first place - even crazier to start companies like Monster Cable and Snow Monsters.

Noel and I are in agreement that there is no conflict or ill-will between Snow Monsters and Monster Cable Products - none whatsoever.

Any statements or feelings that I have expressed in the past, whether on our websites, printed correspondence, or email are resolved in a fair and honorable manner by both parties. Everyone in my family feels this way and wants you to know that:

Snow Monsters is not responsible, nor do we condone, any information published by other persons that is untrue or misleading. I learned that we may have posted links to online information that is not accurate.

I don't have any knowledge, nor have I ever claimed that Monster Cable has filed lawsuits against hundreds of companies or filed frivolous lawsuits. Rumors about suing the Chicago Bears, the Red Sox, or Fenway Park are simply false.

The database people have referred to is a list of trademark oppositions and requests for extensions. Trademark objection is a normal process for trademark owners. It is the Patent and Trademark office that decides if the trademark is allowed. Snow Monsters and Monster Cable will be protecting and policing our marks, or we will be in danger of losing them.

And Monster Cable never sued us. We filed a complaint in Federal Court against Monster Cable and have since withdrawn it. Please research information and check facts before jumping to any conclusions about Monster Cable. Our primary concern is to spread the truth - not cloud it.
Thanks very much to all fans of Snow Monsters. This letter will be sent to as many of our friends as possible in hopes of clearing up the situation. I ask that you do the same. And please...Think Snow!

Jack Turner, President

Inquiring minds want to know :wtf:

David Meek
01-11-2005, 08:31 AM
Oh now THAT's interesting. I'm smelling a large payola rat.

NMyTree
01-11-2005, 11:03 AM
SCREW Monster Cable!! SCREW Monster Cable!! SCREW Monster Cable!!!

I haven't bought one of their cables in over 12 years, and I certainly won't be buying it now.

Only thing that pisses me off is, my Wharfedale Evolution 10 and Wharfedale Opus 2 are internally wired with Monster Cable .

But I love those speakers, so I'll try to overlook it.

Nothing that is said now, can repair or change the fact of what Monster Cable has been doing. It's all damage control.

Noel Lee,

You and your Attorneys..... can kiss my a........;s@;s@;s@;s@;s@;s@;s@

audiomatrix
01-12-2005, 08:56 PM
If anyone is even remotely curious about the real intentions of Monster Cable in regards to protecting their name from 'confusion', one needs only review this link and amount of legal filings going back and forth in just this one case:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91124683&pty=OPP&eno=35

Monster Cable takes Brunswick to trial over a bowling ball?!!!

You draw your own conclusions about any postings by Noel Lee as to his genuine commitment to only pursue incidents of trademark confusion where it is necessary.

Sad. I liked the post by Ray Kimber - only wish everyone could read it and see what is going on and take a stand.

ThomasW
01-16-2005, 11:50 AM
Interesting item for sale on ebay

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=67780&item=5743706836&rd=1

Rolyasm
01-19-2005, 01:48 PM
Wow, I always knew Monster cable was a monster price, so I would not have purchased their stuff. However, I was looking at power conditioners and surge protection from them. I will be rethinking my purchase and just sent them a letter telling them so. Thanks for the info.
Roly

ThomasW
01-28-2005, 04:41 PM
This should be fun :B

http://www.monsterlawsuits.com/

David Meek
01-28-2005, 10:23 PM
Hmmmm, irresistable force vs. immovable object? Heehee. :B

purplepeople
01-31-2005, 01:27 PM
Hi all,

Just saw this article on The Durango Herald website.

:)ensen.



http://durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/05/news050113_4.htm

*****

January 13, 2005

'Monsters' battle, reach settlement

By Dominic Weilminster
Herald Staff Writer

Snow Monsters, a small Durango company that went to federal court last month, ended its battle this week with Monster Cable, the home electronics giant. They made peace out of court, clearing up a trademark dispute.

Jack Turner, owner of Snow Monsters, and David Tognotti, attorney for Monster Cable, refused to release details. Snow Monsters, a producer of ski and snowboard instructional videos, substituted the link "Boycott Monster Cable" with "Monster Cable" on its Web site. The new link leads to a letter from Turner to customers.

Last month, Turner claimed that Monster Cable wanted to "drive Snow Monsters into the ground" over his brand name. He urged customers to "Help protect free speech and small business (and) Boycott Monster Cable products" by phoning complaints to Monster Cable CEO Noel Lee. And Turner asked the court to declare his right to use monster in his company name.

In the past, Monster Cable has aggressively challenged other "monster" companies over brand names.

They targeted The Discovery Channel with its show "Monster Garage" and Disney with its film "Monsters Inc." among more than 100 instances. Like Turner's, most disputes ended out of court.

On Monday, Turner acknowledged "serious, but cordial discussions" expressing that no ill-will remains and that Snow Monsters:

• Is not responsible for misleading information published by others about Monster Cable.

• Never claimed that Monster Cable filed frivolous lawsuits against others.

• Agrees that trademark opposition is typical for trademark owners.

• Withdrew its claim in federal court.

"I thought it wouldn't be a happy outcome," Turner said. "But sometimes what appears to be the darkest dark can turn out to be the brightest light."

*****

ThomasW
02-16-2005, 12:41 PM
http://www.monstersofcrock.com/

Bruce
02-16-2005, 02:52 PM
Monster cable is still fulfilling the bully role with it's continued harassment of the small company MonsterVintage clothes. This is a pretty disgusting practice by Monster's lawyers.

I have vowed to NEVER buy a Monster Cable product and would like to see this story go on for a long time and get some national press. Monster Cable deserves nothing less than the full wrath of a consumer boycott.

Patt
02-16-2005, 03:43 PM
On another Forum, for the life of me I can't remember now, {Noel himself} said the Patent people, not him, were deciding who could and who could not use the name....... :grab:

Hdale85
05-11-2006, 11:38 AM
I dont thinkt he patent people care unless one of the people that patented it seems to have a problem with it.

pikers
05-11-2006, 12:46 PM
Actually Bose sued Monster for the use of the word "LightWave"

Gorden,

They also went after Monster House. Maybe the Monster house crew could pay Noel Lee a visit at his home ......... :roflmao:

On the other hand, one wonders why counsel for these "Monster" shows and other organizations don't heed what has happened to others that have been sued. Then all of the hue and cry could have been avoided.

Walking into a punch only yields you so much sympathy...

David Meek
05-11-2006, 12:57 PM
So pikers just be clear, you advocate everyone rolling over and letting some uber-corporation do just what they feel is best - rights be damned?

pikers
05-11-2006, 05:59 PM
So pikers just be clear, you advocate everyone rolling over and letting some uber-corporation do just what they feel is best - rights be damned?

No, I expect the "little guy" companies to do their homework.

Fact is, anyone in this climate that puts "Monster" in their name is ASKING for it.

ThomasW
05-11-2006, 06:37 PM
Fact is, anyone in this climate that puts "Monster" in their name is ASKING for itMonster Cable does not own the rights to the word monster..and they ran away from a suit in federal court when a tiny used clothing store won a change of venue out of Monster Cable's home court....
http://www.monstervintage.com/

Another interesting article
http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=1957

And here's a little letter written early in 2005 year by the head monster when his company was taking a pounding on internet forums. It's pretty interesting reading since the legal teams actions contradict Noel Lee's claims...... :roll:

Monster Wrongfully Accused: A Note from Noel Lee, CEO of Monster Cable Products.

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%2C+ ...

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.

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

Monster Web Site
http://www.monstercable.com


Here is the list of our registered Monster trademarks. We have many more that are pending registration.

Class 6: Electronic Cables and Wires
Monster Cable

Class 9: Consumer Electronics

In class 9 we have the following registered trademarks, some which date back as far as 1978:

Monster
Monster Cable
Monster Power
Monster Music
Monster Batteries
Monster Car Audio
Monster Central
Monster Computer
Monster Internet
Monster Digital
Monster Game
Monster Home Theatre
Monster Lock
Monster Microphone
Monster Mobile
Monster Mounts
Monster Multimedia
Monster Networking
Monster Satellite
Monster Sport
Monster Standard
Monster Tips
Monster USB
Monster Wire America

Class 16: Consumer Electronics
Monster
Monster Connection

Class 18: Leather Bags and Apparel
Monster Design

Class 25: Clothing and Apparel

In Class 25, we have the following registered trademarks, some which date back over 15 years:

I Am A Monster
Monster
Monster Attitude
Monster Design
Monster Sport

Class 35: Advertising and Marketing Services
eMonster
iMonster
Monster Bucks
Monsterbook
Monsterguide

Class 36: Financial Services
Monstermoney

Class 41: Entertainment, Educational and Training Services
Monster Music
Monster Style

Class 42: Research and Development Services
Monster Music
Monsterlinks


Regards
Monster ThomasW...:wink:

NMyTree
05-12-2006, 09:30 AM
Actions speak louder than words.

And Mr. Lees words........are barely audible.

Regardless, never shall I spend a penny on Mr. Lees products. Never.

David Meek
05-12-2006, 10:25 AM
I couldn't have said it better. :T

pikers
05-12-2006, 05:27 PM
I'm not pro-Monster, or anyone else in favor of frivolous litigation. I am against companies that fail to exercise due diligence, and then whine about the results.

What's ironic is that the exposure of Monster Cable has no doubt spurred others into using that moniker for their product as well. In that, I can see Noel's point. OTOH, enough's enough.

Lex
05-12-2006, 11:19 PM
the word monster has had meaning outside of cables, a lot longer than one may think. Anyone remember Monster Mash, the song? Vintage 1970 probably. Monster trucks? Been around a while!

I don't look at using the word Monster by itself or with something other than cables as being ripped off. I look at it as adaptation of a word that has multiple meanings, but mostly originates as a description for goulish looking characters like Herman Munster, and his predecessor, Frankenstein, yes, a Monster. Monster also became known as a conotation for LARGE from mostly the Monster Truck association I think.

-D

pikers
05-13-2006, 04:28 PM
MC clearly at one point thought that there was brand confusion with others using Monster in their name, and sued. Then, decided to go nuts apparently....

KeithM
05-13-2006, 04:54 PM
Next thing you know, Noel Lee will become copyrighted so we can't talk about him. Anyways, the only monster cable I have is a low-end one that I got free because they sent me a wrong part, and it's been replaced by a better rat-shack cable.

pikers
05-18-2006, 02:52 PM
Let's just make sure that we don't like Brand A because we perceived an unfavorable performance issue, not because we like to jump on the bandwagon. :T

Boombox
05-20-2006, 03:59 PM
What will happen if your surname is Kables and you just happened to name your first son..."Monsta".....??

MONSTA Kables