Have you heard what Monster Cable is doing? (1 Viewer)

[ScottCarr]

The more I read the more disgusted I get....

 

[Roger Kint]

So tell me this - have they won any of their lawsuits?

 

[FeisalK]

Roger you're missing the point of this all. They can't win with most of those cases they apply for a 60 day extension for 'investigation'.

for example; case #78321924 filed December 2nd 2004 against BOUDREAUX'S CAJUN KITCHEN, INC. for "Home of the Monster Shrimp". Can they win? Why would they contest the registration then?

From reading Monster Snow, what do you think they want to do? Maybe, a license fee to use the word "Monster" in the dish's name PLUS 1% of profits from all the shrimp dishes sold?

What would you think if Microsoft went after everyone who used the word Windows® in their trade name? (easy target)Would they win every case? No course they wont. But what would your estimation of them be?

"Roger Hardware Store" goes nationwide and trademarks Roger®. They send you a letter saying, I want you to pay me a license fee for using Roger, plus 1% of your salary. Or change your name. If you contest this, we can stay in court for as long as it takes. Whoopee.

If you try to steal from a bank, but fail to get away are you absolved of the attempt?

 

[Jason Dalton]

Obviously, someone involved with Monster Cable is an illogical jackass. Yup, there's no other explanation for it.

If these aren't lawsuits, like "Noel Lee" said in the rebuttal, how come they have come apparent financial settlements with the likes of the Boston Red Sox and Monster.com? Two entities that had no earthly reason to be the target of ANY type of litigation from Monster Cable.

Not that I would ever buy anything from Monster Cable anyway, but this is sickening.

 

[ScottCarr]

Remember Mr lee is living the american dream, Damn if anyone else tries to.

 

[Kenneth Harden]

Wow, that was

Good point.

 

[Evan H]

I had my buddy who is in law school do some quick research on the case (he didn't care about it but was up to the challenge when I said how blatantly f-ed up the the cases seemed) The first case he was able to locate was the one against discovery for monster garage and monster house. The basic filing of the lawsuit in that case was that the merchandising campaign for monster garage was entering into the realm of trademarked goods of monsster cable.

 

[Chris Fleming]

Why do Monster cable products cost as much as they do? To pay for their attorneys of course! How much per foot is added by the cost of litigation and filings in general?

Ridiculous! Monster cable = over-priced! They did pick a good name though. Because the company is a real monster!

Later

 

[Ted Lee]

nice rebuttal from snow monster. the canned message from monster cables tries to show that they are nice guys, just protecting their trademark, etc, but when you see the actual verbage of the lawsuit, you can see how brutal it is.

i'm really surprised at this, but somebody made a good point. monster isn't the only company to do this kind of stuff. i think it was abercrombie that tried to trademark a number? what about spike lee suing because some show/channel was using the name "spike". :rolleyes

part of me can't help but think this is some sort of marketing ploy...a stupid one....but it's definitely garnering publicity. plus, with the recent acquisition of candlestick park, i suppose their just more worried then before about the name. remember how hesitant people were to call candlestick 3com? (or however it went...not a sports guy)

---

bottom line is that monster (whether they're being hyper-aggressive) or not is shooting themselves in the foot. they're going about this badly and the backlash is going to do more harm then good.

 

[Evan H]

I hope this is legal to post... it's the filing that monster made in court, which I believe to be public knowledge. If this violates any copyright or other laws, please delete it.

That being said, here is the exact wording of the filing in court by monster:

United States District Court,
N.D. California.
MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant.
No. C 03-03250 WHA.
Nov. 1, 2004.
Marcy Jill Bergman, Cyrus P. Wadia, M. Elizabeth Deen, Robert A. Padway, Cooper, White & Cooper LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Evan S. Stolove, Anne L. Milem, Anthony V. Lupo, Randall A. Brater, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC, Washington, DC, Dawn M. Ceizler, Andrew Thomas Mortl, Glynn & Finley, LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ALSUP, J.
INTRODUCTION
*1 In this trademark action, defendant has moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for false designation of origin, dilution and damages. Due to genuine issues of material fact, defendant's motion with respect to false designation of origin and damages is DENIED. Defendant's motion with respect to dilution, however, is GRANTED.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff Monster Cable Products, Inc. ("MCP") was founded in 1979 with its business focused on audio cable products (Lee Decl. ¶ 2). Since then, however, MCP has expanded into other product lines. Now, MCP has over 4,000 separate products, predominantly cables and connectors, but also batteries, furniture, automotive products, CDs, and clothing (id. ¶¶ 6, 9). It has registered approximately 52 trademarks used in connection with its numerous products, such as (description of product in parenthesis if not apparent from the mark): MONSTER (cables and clothing), MONSTER CABLE (cables, connectors and clothing), I AM A MONSTER (t-shirts and jackets), MONSTER GEAR (clothing), MONSTER SPORT (clothing), MONSTER MUSIC (CDs), and MONSTER GAME (entertainment system components) (Lee Decl. ¶ 9; Bolling Decl. Exh. 2). [FN1] 27 of these registered marks are incontestable.

FN1. MCP has requested judicial notice of registrations or

applications from the PTO's website and a motion in limine filed in 2001 in the District of Maryland. The request is GRANTED under FRE 201.



MCP sells many products under the various MONSTER marks, as relevant to the present motion, clothing, key chains, bags, automobile accessories such as license plate holders, and cell phone accessories (Radsliff Decl. Exhs. 1-4, 6). Since the early 1980s, MCP has sold automotive accessory products with the trademarks MONSTER PERFORMANCE CAR, MONSTER MOBILE and MONSTER POWER (Radsliff Decl. ¶ 5). The automotive products range from battery terminals, cell telephone accessories, car mounts, license plate frames, key chains, t-shirts, and jackets (ibid.). MCP also began marketing its brand by sponsoring a Porsche racing team (id. ¶ 6 & Exh. 3) and using a fleet of high-performance sports cars, some even customized, at its retail stores or conventions (id. ¶ 7 & Exh. 4).
Major national retailers, including Good Guys, Best Buy, Target and Wal Mart, have sold MCP's products (Frederick Decl. ¶ 6; Radsliff Decl. ¶ 17). In stores such as Good Guys, MONSTER products have been placed in prominent locations near televisions and stereos (Frederick Decl. ¶ 9). MCP has also sold its products on its own website and other online retailers (Radsliff Decl. ¶ 18).
MCP has received awards and accolades (Radsliff Decl. ¶ 35). Articles have been written about the company and its products (ibid.; Lee Decl. ¶ 6). In a brochure, it states that "MONSTER is the world's leading manufacturer of high performance cables for audio, home theater, car stereo, computer, gaming and professional musical instruments" (id. at Exh. 10). Based on MCP's products and trademarks, Chris Frederick, the director of attachment sales at Good Guys (a nonparty), opines that MCP's MONSTER brand is famous among people who shop at consumer electronics stores such as Good Guys (Frederick Decl. ¶ 5). He also opines that males between the ages of 16-55 with an interest in car customization and consumer electronics have heard of MONSTER products (id. ¶ 10). Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (of which defendant is also a member), testified at his deposition that MCP's family of marks was "famous" for consumer electronics (Deen Decl. Exh. 8 at 26 & 47):
*2 Monster clearly dominates when it comes to things which connect products together. I don't think there is a better known brand in the world, quite frankly, that I'm aware of other than Monster in terms of wires and cables and things that connect one of your products, whether it's a computer or loud speaker or television, with another product.
Monster has a phenomenal reputation within the consumer electronics industry. There isn't a retailer that probably does not know Monster and their dominant position.
* * *
In my opinion Monster Cable is famous to anyone who buys and uses consumer electronics products, which is a good portion of the United States' population.
* * *
Defendant Discovery Communications, Inc. ("DCI") is a media and entertainment company that owns and operates the cable television station The Discovery Channel. DCI produced two television series entitled "Monster Garage" and "Monster House." For the purpose of the present motion, this order focuses on DCI's use of the mark MONSTER GARAGE.
DCI first aired the show "Monster Garage" in June 2002. Starting around August 16, 2002, DCI filed numerous applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the MONSTER GARAGE mark alone or with a design. The original MONSTER GARAGE mark had the words "Monster Garage" with the Discovery Channel Globe (Figure 1). In early 2003, DCI changed its design for the mark MONSTER GARAGE. The redesign altered the lettering of "Monster Garage" with the word "Monster" in an arc shape above the word "Garage" (Figure 2). A third design of the mark MONSTER GARAGE was later created, wherein the word "Monster" had even greater prominence (Figure 3).
TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE
DCI filed numerous applications with the PTO for the various marks for MONSTER GARAGE for use with, as pertinent to the case, CDs, novelty buttons, key chains, key fobs, license plates, floor mats, duffle bags, carry-on bags, and clothing, namely t-shirts, jackets, coats, vests, caps and other headwear (Compl.Exhs.52-53). None of these applications, however, has resulted in registration of the mark for use.
In August 2002, DCI adopted a licensing strategy to use the mark MONSTER GARAGE on t-shirts, fleece apparel, hats, and interactive games (Deen Decl. Exh. 20). In the following month, DCI started licensing the MONSTER GARAGE mark for such goods (Brater Decl. Exh. 17 at 99-100). The MONSTER GARAGE mark appeared on apparel as early as October 11, 2002. DCI began using the mark on novelty items such as key chains as early as January 2003.
In 2004 (after the present action commenced), DCI adopted a marketing strategy to make "Monster Garage a Mega-brand" (Deen Decl. Exh. 2 at 40). In that connection, DCI planned to expand into toys, apparel, and automotive accessories in major retail outlets such as Target and Wal-Mart (Deen Decl. Exh. 18). DCI apparently achieved these plans. At some point in 2004, DCI used the MONSTER GARAGE mark in connection with miniature remote cars and automobile accessories.
*3 In addition, DCI planned to expand into the electronics category (Deen Decl. Exh. 18 at DCI 11384). Sharon Bennett, senior vice president for strategic partnerships in the consumer-products division, testified that DCI was interested in expanding into electronic goods such as "fun phones" (Deen. Decl. Exh. 2 at 47-48). By Spring 2004, DCI started licensing the mark MONSTER GARAGE to be used for interactive computer games or "plug n' play interactive tv game" (id. at Exh. 17). In connection with the present motion, however, Ms. Bennett states in her declaration that DCI has no present plans to license any cables, connectors or other electrical components for audio, video, computer or gaming systems for the MONSTER GARAGE television program (Bennett Decl. ¶ 6) (emphasis added). [FN2]

FN2. DCI cannot now contend that DCI had "no plans to license MONSTER GARAGE for consumer electronics" (Br.2). That contention is contradicted by the evidence in the record. DCI's own marketing materials clearly stated in writing that DCI's goal was to expand into the electronics category. Ms. Bennett testified that DCI was interested in expanding into electronic goods.



All of these licensed products with DCI's marks were sold through major retailers such as Target, Wal Mart and Circuit City. DCI also sold products at its Discovery Channel retail stores and on its website www.discovery.com. The online store also sells a wide variety of products unrelated to MONSTER GARAGE or any television series, including toys, electronic goods, and home entertainment products (Johnson Decl. Exhs. 1-2). [FN3]

FN3. DCI objects to declarations of Foster Johnson, Scott Harris, Liliana Aranda and Linda Wong as containing information or appended exhibits not produced during discovery. DCI contends that FRCP 37(c)(1) precludes admission of such declarations and appended exhibits. FRCP 37(c)(1), however, applies to failure to disclose information pursuant to Rule 26(a). Moreover, DCI has not even made any showing that MCP had even failed to produce this information in discovery or that discovery was even requested. As such, DCI has not met its burden. In the alternative, Exhibit 2 of the Foster Declaration contains photographs of the products offered at DCI's own online store. To that extent, this Court can take judicial notice under FRE 201 as these products are still offered on DCI's website, http://shopping.discovery.com (last checked October 18, 2004).

 

[William_Gravem]

Interesting stuff, Evan. But even though



I still don't think it's right for them to go after anyone who makes a t-shirt or key chain with the word "Monster" on it. It really does seem like some of this is just strong-arming smaller companies who don't have the resources to fight it.

 

[Chu Gai]

Well one thing we can all do, those that are just tired of all these law suits, is to write and email Monster indicating our displeasure and our intentions to not only not buy Monster products but to urge our friends and others on the various websites to do the same. Further, we can also do the same to some of the distribution channels that Monster uses such as CC, BB, RS, Walmart, and others. There is the power of the pen.

 

[Ted Lee]

does anybody know if they're suing monster.com?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Chu is correct. We can also show our support by purchasing from the businesses that are the victims in this sham. Then send the receipt to consumer relations at Monster Cables with a nice note that says you support the companies Monster litigates against.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Already got a settlement from them (and a link to their website on monster.com).

 

[David Strand]

So I went to the stopthemonster website and it is only a letter from the Snow Monsters president saying that they have apparently kissed and made up with Monster Cable.

After reading this whole thread I have a significantly reduced opinion of Monster Cable as a company, and most likely this will be reflected in my future cable purchases. I wonder why the stopthemonster web site has been changed though... anyone know?

 

[ScottCarr]

I truly hope it went in favor of Snow Monster.

 

[Chris Quinn]

I wonder if all this publicity is getting to Monster's bottom line? I was in CC today and saw a buy 3 Monster products get 15% off sale. I've never seen a Monster sale before.

 

[Val_Lombrossa]

New information on Monster Cable vs. Discovery Communications re: Monster House and Monster Garage --

Evan H, who posted previously about the lawsuit by Monster Cable against Discovery Communications, got my curiosity up and I found this (below) info on another audio forum.

Sounds to me like Monster Cable took away Discovery Channel's names after their lawsuit. I have NEVER confused the two and I'm surprised that Monster Cable would risk such a backlash against them by diehard American fans of Monster Garage and Monster House. That's pretty risky when they are going after shows likely watched by the very market segment they are hoping sell to. Well, I'll do my part.

(raising right hand) I swear to never buy another Monster Cable Product again in my life and encourage others to do similarly as well.

*********************

(From the trademark office's webpage...)


Word Mark: MONSTER HOUSE

Goods and Services: Entertainment services in the nature of a television series concerning home renovation and home improvement.

Owner(APPLICANT) MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS


---- and -----


Word Mark: MONSTER GARAGE

Goods and Services: Entertainment services in the nature of a television series regarding the reconstruction of automobiles into unique motor vehicle devices.

Owner(APPLICANT) MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS


I personally am boycotting any and all Monster Cable products and am spreading the word to everyone I know. I also plan to write into my future contracts for audio design installations that 'under no circumstances will any Monster Cable products be utilized anywhere on the project.' In fact, I am starting with a museum project I am
working on currently and another install job in NY.

I think it important that people know what is happening here -- and yes, in America. The land of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Please let everyone you know on every message board and forum -- just what is going on here!

Someone has got to listen.

*********************

 

[Ted Lee]

so in the case of monster garage and monster house, monster corporation actually *does* have the trademark?

well, i guess they have a right then. it doesn't mean i necessarily agree with them though. from what i'm gathering though, they're going after folks using the monster name for which monster corp has no legitimate right?