Monster Cable suing rampage

I can't get a hold of Monster cables around here anyway so i'm not boycotting them. But I'll just buy an extra Planet Waves cable just to piss them off haha
 
monster cable getting owned...HARD

RE: Your letter, received April Fools' Day

Dear Monster Lawyers,

Let me begin by stating, without equivocation, that I have no interest whatsoever in infringing upon any intellectual property belonging to Monster Cable. Indeed, the less my customers think my products resemble Monster's, in form or in function, the better.

I am evaluating your claim that the connectors on certain Tartan brand products infringe Monster's design patents and trademarks. However, the information supplied with your letter is plainly inadequate to support a claim of infringement and so I am writing to you to ask for further information and clarification regarding your claims.

I will begin by addressing your trademark/trade dress claim. You have referred to two trademark registrations, and have attached some printouts from the USPTO system but the depiction of the marks on the drawings provided is small and indistinct, making it difficult to determine exactly what the alleged resemblance is, and I need further information from you.

First, I need legible, scale drawings of the marks, preferably with dimensions shown on the drawing. To the extent that drawings are inadequate to show the nature of materials, finishes, print legends, colors and the like, I will also need examples of each of Monster Cable's actual uses of these marks in commerce; actual physical examples would be best, but photographic reproductions might do. As you will understand, these considerations are essential to any claim arising out of trade dress, as you are alleging in essence that there is a resemblance sufficient to cause confusion over the identity or origin of the goods, and no mere line-drawing can suffice.

Second, I will need copies of the trademark applications and any correspondence between the applicant and the USPTO in support of the applications.

Third, you have not identified the Monster Cable products in question, in actual use and distribution in commerce, whose trade dress you allege has been appropriated. I have reviewed Monster Cable's online materials and have examined connectors on various Monster Cable assemblies in local retail outlets and am unable to determine which, if any, of these are thought by Monster to represent use of these particular marks. I am also unable to determine from this review whether Monster Cable actually offers any product for sale to which the Tartan connectors are alleged to be particularly similar. My own sense of it, in looking at the connectors, has been that there is no similarity between the Tartan connectors and any of the many Monster Cable connectors beyond the general functional and conventional characteristics which all or nearly all solder-cup, mechanical-assembly, barrel-style RCA-type connectors share. It may be that there is some line of products to which you have intended to refer but which I have not found in Monster Cable's marketing materials or displays; but if so, you will need to show me specifically what product it is, and you will need to call to my attention the specific aspects of the connector design which you contend constitute unique Monster Cable trade dress, what the associated secondary meaning of those aspects of the trade dress is, and in what manner and by what characteristics you allege that this trade dress has been appropriated.

Fourth, if the dimensional characteristics of the connector as used in commerce vary from the dimensions of the scale drawing of your mark, I will need a proper scale drawing, with dimensions, of each version of the actual connector as used in commerce, as well as photographs of the connectors showing actual in-use finishes. If there is more than one such connector design in actual use by Monster Cable as to which appropriation of trade dress is alleged, of course, I will require this information for each and every such design.

On the basis of what I have seen, both in the USPTO documents you have sent and the actual appearance of Monster Cable connectors which I have observed in use in commerce, it does not appear to me that Monster Cable is in a position to advance a nonfrivolous claim for infringement of these marks. There simply is not sufficient resemblance between the Tartan connectors and any mark or any example of the marks' actual use that I can find to support such a claim. But if you have further information for me on that point, you are welcome to submit it.

You have also supplied me with partial documentation on five design patents which you claim these connectors infringe. I will begin by observing, first, that the five design patents are so very much unlike one another that it is very hard to imagine that any product could actually infringe more than one of them at a time; anything close enough to one of them to be deemed an infringement would, by that fact alone, be too dissimilar from the other four. The dissimilarity of the Tartan connector from each of them is readily evident.

I should add that, for the purpose of this letter, I am assuming that these patents are valid. This is in no way a concession of the point. In fact, this is a very significant and likely inaccurate assumption, and you should expect the patentability of these designs to be under attack if you commence an action for infringement.

The fact that you have presented me with five completely distinct design patents, I have to say, gives me pause. I would go over them and detail the differences between the Tartan connectors and those shown in the patents, but if you are taking the position that it appears you are taking, there might be very little point in discussing it with you. Take, for example, the patent you mark as Exhibit B. The connector shown there is substantially different from the Tartan connectors in every respect, unless one ignores design specifics and focuses on the core attributes of the connector which are dictated by function. If your view of Exhibit B is that it is to be construed broadly enough as to encompass the Tartan connector, it is very hard to imagine that there is such a thing as a solder-assembly style RCA plug which is not similarly, in your view, encompassed by this patent. And, needless to say, it is very hard to imagine that any court would ever adopt such a view of the patent's scope; if you file on this sort of basis, you are in Rule 11 frivolous-claim territory.

I will point out, though you are no doubt already well aware, that the gross morphology of the RCA plug is pretty well dictated by function. RCA plugs intended for soldering and assembly have certain attributes in common; their diameter is constrained by the need for the shell to fit over an internal set of solder points and cable clamp, and their length by the need to provide some room for cable end prep and attachment; they are generally radially symmetrical along the anterior/posterior axis owing to the need to accommodate both a round-profile cable and the round-profile RCA socket; the connector end is constrained by the standard dimensions of the RCA socket, and by the need, as the socket provides for no bayonet or screw attachment, to provide sufficient tension on insertion to maintain good mechanical and electrical contact; the barrel, grasped by the user for the purpose of insertion and removal, requires traction which is typically provided by raised or recessed rings, plastic inserts, knurling, or the like; and transition between the connector and the cable to which it is attached requires, in one form or another, a reduction in barrel size at the connector rear. It is my assumption, since you cite design patents only and no utility patents, that Monster Cable makes no claim here for any functional aspect of any of these designs; if I am wrong, please let me know what utility patents Monster Cable does hold, and what claims, if any, Monster asserts on the basis of those utility patents.

Further, on that point: one of the design patents you attached is closely related to a utility patent applicable to the same design, and you failed to point that fact out. I need to be able to rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information you send to me and I find this sort of omission deeply disturbing because it is clear that the effect of this nondisclosure is to obscure the real significance of the patent features. Similarly, as I note further below, you omit reference to another patent Monster has held which appears, frankly, to be fatal to your position. If you expect to persuade me, you had better start making full, open and honest disclosures; I will find out the facts sooner or later in any event, but the impact upon your credibility will not be repaired. It looks like when you sent this letter, you were operating on the premise that I am not smart enough to see through your deceptions or sophisticated enough to intelligently evaluate your claims; shame on you. You are required, as a matter of legal ethics, to display good faith and professional candor in your dealings with adverse parties, and you have fallen miserably short of your ethical responsibilities.

My sense, in looking at these five patents, is that either you are attempting to present some argument that I simply do not understand or you are arguing for untenably broad coverage of these patents which would sweep every functional aspect of the typical solder-assembly RCA connector within the scope of a handful of mere design patents. You need to clarify this, and frankly, I think you need to indicate to me which, if any, of these patents you actually contend are relevant to the present discussion. It cannot possibly be that you believe that more than one of these patents is pertinent, and if you insist that they are, we cannot have an intelligent dialogue on this subject. Once you have identified the patent which you contend is relevant, I need to see the file history and the references to prior art; I need copies of the applicant's correspondence with the USPTO; and I need a clear and cogent explanation from you as to exactly what aspects of the Tartan connector design are alleged to constitute the infringement, and how.

Additionally, if you are able to identify any of these patents as applicable, please let me know whether Monster Cable presently sells, or has at any time sold, any products bearing connectors which are in conformity with the patent drawings or which are otherwise contended to be within the coverage of the patents, and identify those products for me. Please also provide photographs and/or physical examples of these connectors as manufactured and sold.

Also, please provide me all of the information referenced above as it relates to your expired patent D323643, a copy of which I am attaching. I will need to know what products Monster now offers or at any time has offered for sale which were believed to fall within the scope of D323643, and what claims, if any, of infringement of D323643 were made against others by Monster, whether those claims of infringement took the form of correspondence only, litigation, or otherwise. Please let me know which, if any, products Monster has ever sold or offered for sale which were marked with the patent number, or other reference, to D323643. Please also advise me whether, in your view, the Tartan connector does or does not fall within the scope of D323643, and if it is your view that it does not, please identify each and every difference between the Tartan connector and the connector represented by D323643 upon which your view is based. (On that note, let me point out to you that the "turbine cut" feature is irrelevant here as your client makes only functional, not design, claims for that feature in its marketing materials for the product.) I would assume that you would agree with me that if the Tartan connector is less dissimilar from the D323643 patent than from any of the five patents you cite in your letter, then the Tartan connector is within the coverage of the prior art and cannot, as a matter of law, infringe any of your client's current patents.

I must also point out that unless there is a good deal of background information you have not provided me which makes the case otherwise, Monster Cable cannot possibly square its patent infringement claim(s) with its own patent history. Two views of the matter might be taken; the first, which is my view, is that none of the design patents, including D323643, encompass the Tartan connector. If that is so, of course, the claim for infringement fails. But if one grants the sort of breadth to these patents that you appear to wish to do, a problem arises for Monster. D323643 is the least dissimilar to the Tartan connector of any of the patents, and stands as an obstacle to any claim of infringement of the others because it establishes prior art; if its scope, like the others, is granted the breadth you argue for, then the Tartan connector falls plainly under the prior art and cannot constitute an infringement of the later, and more dissimilar, patents. Read the patents narrowly, and Monster loses; read them broadly, and Monster loses. You are welcome to point out any error in my reasoning; but I have to say that I will be unreservedly surprised if you are successful in doing so.

Please also let me know whether Monster Cable or any related entity has brought actions to enforce any of the patents and trademarks referenced in your letter or above, and provide me with the jurisdiction, court and docket information pertaining thereto, along with copies of any decisions or judgments resulting therefrom. If any such litigation proceeded through discovery, I will need all discovery responses, including document production, issued by Monster, as well as copies of any and all depositions taken and the exhibits thereto.

Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements. I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.

Once I have received the above materials and explanations from you, I will undertake to analyze this information and let you know whether we are willing to accede to any of the demands made in your letter. If my analysis shows that there is any reasonable likelihood that we have infringed in any way any of Monster Cable's intellectual property rights, we will of course take any and all action necessary to resolve the situation. If I do not hear from you within the next fourteen days, or if I do hear from you but do not receive all of the information requested above, I will assume that you have abandoned these claims and closed your file.

As for your requests for information, or for action, directed to me: I would remind you that it is you, not I, who are making claims; and it is you, not I, who must substantiate those claims. You have not done so.

I have seen Monster Cable take untenable IP positions in various different scenarios in the past, and am generally familiar with what seems to be Monster Cable's modus operandi in these matters. I therefore think that it is important that, before closing, I make you aware of a few points.

After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues. My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle. In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table. I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word. If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds. As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.

I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands. Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to (1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind. If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims--or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims--from start to finish. Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.

I will also point out to you that if you do choose to undertake litigation, your "upside" is tremendously limited. If you somehow managed, despite the formidable obstacles in your way, to obtain a finding of infringement, and if you were successful at recovering a large licensing fee--say, ten cents per connector--as the measure of damages, your recovery to date would not reach four figures. On the downside, I will advance defenses which, if successful, will substantially undermine your future efforts to use these patents and marks to threaten others with these types of actions; as you are of course aware, it is easier today for your competitors to use collateral estoppel offensively than it ever has been before. Also, there is little doubt that making baseless claims of trade dress infringement and design patent infringement is an improper business tactic, which can give rise to unfair competition claims, and for a company of Monster's size, potential antitrust violations with treble damages and attorneys' fees.

I look forward to receiving the information requested and will review it promptly as soon as it is received.

Sincerely,

Kurt Denke
Click to expand...
 
Colonel, i read that yesterday, imagine the faces of those fuckers and their lawyers when they recieved the letter, haha, My respect for Kurk denke!!
 
Holly shit they responded.

Dear Loren,

Thanks for your viewpoint. Given the information that you have, I don’t blame you for being upset, but what you’ve read or been told is not the whole story. There have been a lot of false accusations and misinformation spread by the Monster Mini Golf people that are half-truths. One also needs to consider other important information in getting a balanced viewpoint.

1) Monster Mini Golf Misconceptions;
Monster Mini Golf would like to disguise themselves as a small Mom and Pop business, but they are in fact a national organization selling franchises with the Monster trademark. They currently have 24 franchise locations across 10 states stretching from California to New Jersey. They have filed for several “Monster” marks, including “MONSTER” by itself , MONSTER MINI GOLF, MONSTER FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT CENTERS and MONSTR MINI GOLF in an area of business where we have established trademarks awarded by the United States Patent and Trademark office. They charge franchise and set up fees upwards of $200,000, part of which is the licensing of the name “Monster:” to all of those franchises. Check their website http://www.monsterminigolf.com/cost_breakdown.html

2) Monster Cable as been awarded many marks by the Patent and Trademark office that we have to protect that go far beyond cables.
Many may think that we are only Monster Cable. Over the past 30 years we do business with many Monster marks. We have been awarded 100 registered Monster trademarks in 12 different classes by the Patent and Trademark office, most of which are used with products with smaller sales than Monster Cable, but this doesn’t mean we don’t have the rights to them or the obligation to protect those rights. All of these trademarks predate Monster Mini Golf’s application for trademark, which has not yet been granted. These are our Monster trademarks.

Monster Mints. Monster Power. Monster Game. Monster ScreenClean. Monster Performance Car. Monster Music. Monster Pro. Monster Central. or Monster Sport. The name “Monster” are registered trademarks owned by us in the categories of electronics, music, games, food product, entertainment, cleaning products. The list of all of Monster’s current marks that we have to defend are listed below. More facts. 30 years ago, the Patent and Trademark office granted Noel Lee the name “Monster”, exclusive of the name “cable”. Although we tried to trademark Monster Cable it was not permitted.

3) Monster is obligated to defend its marks or risk losing them.
We do not like suing. It is expensive for both parties and is a last resort. It’s our obligation under the Patent and Trademark law to enforce our marks, or lose them. As noted in the link cited below, “companies who tolerate infringing uses of their mark risk losing all their rights in the mark if a third party challenger claims the company abandoned their mark by not enforcing it. Thus, companies cannot pick and choose against whom they are going to enforce their mark.” http://www.marklaw.com/trademark-glossary/confuse.htm. Famous marks that have been lost in the past because they become generic are such words as “aspirin,” “thermos,” and “elevator.” Both Xerox and Kleenex are examples of brands that were lost and it cost the companies a lot of money and time to re-establish their marks. Monster is in the same danger of losing our mark if we don’t enforce it.

4) Monster must defend its marks just as other well respected companies have done so.
Monster needs to defend our mark just as Apple, Virgin, Ebay, Amazon or other companies who have developed their marks must do so. These companies are within their legal rights to protect their marks as provided for by the Patent and Trademark office. See Examples below.

Apple, Inc.

Apple has also enforced against a number of people who have used the word “POD” as a trademark. For example: MEDPOD, LONPOD, CONTROLPOD, BACPOD, VIDEO POD, SPYPOD, MYPODDER, PODPRESENTER). See attached pdf. You can view more, by clicking the link to the U.S. Patent and Trademark website: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?...e=&pop=&pn=apple+computer&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn= In 2008 Apple filed an opposition in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office against New York City's "Big Apple" logo for the GreenNYC.initiative. (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pnam=NYC & Company, Inc.) Apple also filed an opposition against Green Apple Music Arts & Festival for use of an apple in their logo and the word Apple for music event. See attached pdf.

Ebay, Inc.

Ebay has an active trademark enforcement program for the word “BAY.” Ebay has proceeded against a number of people who have used the word BAY as a trademark. For example: XS BAY, PENNY BAY, HELPU BAY, RIDEBAY, EVERYTHINGBAY, ONEBAY, FREEBAY, TELEBAY, SWAYBAY, FONEBAY). See attached pdf. You can view more, by clicking the link to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website: (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?...p=&propname=&pop=&pn=ebay&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=)

Virgin Enterprises, Inc.

Richard Branson’s company, Virgin, vigorously enforces the word “VIRGIN.” Virgin has proceeded against a number of people who have used the word VIRGIN as a trademark, including: WILD VIRGIN, VIRGIN PINE NATIVE SHEEP BLUE, EXTRA VIRGIN, VIRGINAL CLOTH, BARELY VIRGIN COCKTAILS, VIRGIN SOIL, VIRGIN TURBAN, VIRGIN YOGURT, VIRGIN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, CALIVIRGIN, VIRGIN EYES). See attached pdf. You can view more, by clicking the link to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?...op=&pn=virgin+enterprises&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=

Amazon.com



Amazon enforces its "AMAZON" trademark and opposes people who use it or variations. Amazon has proceeded against people who have used trademarks such as: AMAZON TAXI, AMAZON VENTURES, PRINT AMAZON, AMAZON THUNDER DRINK, AMAZN INFO, AMAZON BANK, etc. See attached pdf. You can view more, by clicking the link to the USPTO website.

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?...&propname=&pop=&pn=amazon&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=

Over the past 30 years we have built many “Monster” brands over many product categories, we believe that we have achieved a “famous mark” in our name of Monster. So Monster Mini Golf is no different than Yahoo Mini Golf, or Microsoft Mini Golf, or Apple Mini Golf, because the “origin” may be unclear. Could the origins be confused with one of the many marks that we have? We believe so.

At the end of the day, we are asking the courts to decide our rights to our trademarks. It won’t be our decision, it will be the court’s and judges.

5) Wrongful accusations made by Monster Mini Golf.
We have never sued the Chicago Bears. We have not filed 400 lawsuits. We do not pick on small business, as we are also a small business. We don’t like lawsuits any more than any other company, and don’t like spending money on attorneys, especially considering the current economy.

6) We want to end this lawsuit as much as anyone.
We have made many overtures of a very very inexpensive licensing arrangement to Monster Mini Golf which would allow them to use the name, while at the same time keep our trademark rights intact. They refused, so we had no option but to file a lawsuit. Monster Mini Golf can easily avoid the costs of a lawsuit, and save everyone time and money if they would license the mark at very little cost to them, and a fraction of the cost of a lawsuit. They already charge their franchisees for the license, so it would be already built in to the price. We are working with their attorneys to try to settle this to everyone’s satisfaction.

7) Corporate Bully?
It’s important to note that we are not some gigantic corporate bully as portrayed. We are also a small company with a great culture, still family owned with 500 employees in Brisbane California. We are not a public company with deep pockets. It’s not inconceivable that Monster Mini Golf could exceed the reach of Monster Cable with the trademark of Monster. You can come to our web site to meet the Monsters, www.monstercable.com.

Below is a more thorough explanation with lots more details, but we thought that it was necessary for us to explain the entire picture before anyone passes judgment on our company or our actions.

Monsterously,

Noel Lee

The Head Monster



Summary of the Facts Behind the Monster Mini Golf Lawsuit.

1) Monster Mini Golf is not a small “mom and pop” shop as they would have you believe, but a “limited liability company” selling Monster Mini golf franchises across the nation. Currently, Monster Mini Golf has 24 franchise locations across the U.S. in 10 states from California to New Jersey. You can see this for yourself on their website (www.monsterminigolf.com). Furthermore, Monster Mini Golf charges franchise and set-up fees upwards of $200,000. This is a company that is making money by licensing our "Monster" brand.

2) Monster Mini Golf is using and has attempted to register several "Monster" trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. They have attempted to register MONSTER, MONSTER MINI GOLF, MONSTER FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT CENTER and MONSTR MINI GOLF. Their trademark use infringes our prior established trademark rights. More specifically, Monster is protecting our rights for our trademarks MONSTER GAME and MONSTER in the area of recreational entertainment, which is one of the trademark classes where we have been awarded trademarks by the USPTO.

3) Most people think of us as just a cable company. However, our business interests are much more diverse then most realize. Most people do not realize that we own a range of “MONSTER” marks beyond simply “MONSTER CABLE.” We have registered and common law trademarks for MONSTER in various classes of goods, including cleaning products, power, clothing, batteries, food products, furniture, gaming, recreational services, sporting goods, sporting events, music, entertainment, automotive products, just to name a few. In fact, you can see a list of our various “MONSTER” marks and types of goods going outside merely cable at the end of this letter.

4) We already had rights to MONSTER and MONSTER GAME in the field of participatory recreational entertainment and goods, before Monster Mini Golf adopted a confusingly similar set of marks. Monster owns the mark MONSTER GAME for certain recreational sporting activities. These rights arose from use in commerce as far back as 1991. Monster also has rights to the mark MONSTER for outdoor sporting goods such as golf clubs by virtue of a license to a partner, whose use began in early 2004. Given this priority of rights, Monster has the right to seek a court decision on whether a consumer would be likely be confused and think that there is an affiliation with Monster’s own trademarks and activities. Given the closeness of the marks (both parties marks containing “Monster”) and uses (both parties in the recreational entertainment/goods), we believe the answer is “yes.”

5) If we don’t protect our MONSTER trademarks, we risk losing the rights altogether.

This is an aspect of the trademark laws in the U.S., that those who have famous brands must comply with. Enforcement actions are taken generally when others use a trademark including the term “Monster” for goods or services in similar market segments or trade channels in which Monster Cable owns prior rights. To understand the likelihood of confusion standard better (and note that both parties here use MONSTER (single word) in recreational entertainment), see http://www.marklaw.com/trademark-glossary/confuse.htm.

6) In order to avoid losing our MONSTER trademarks, Monster has a trademark protection program against others who create a likelihood of confusion with its trademarks. Our protection of our brand is no different than Apple Computer protecting its "Apple" or "Pod" brands, Virgin protecting its “Virgin” brand , Ebay protecting its "Bay" brand or Amazon.com protecting its "Amazon" brand. In fact, our protection program is similar to what is used by these companies; we have listed a few of these references for you below:

7) We are not a corporate giant. We are still a family company, owned and run by our founder, Noel Lee. He started our company in his parent's garage 30 years ago with a dream to build, create and innovative high quality products that consumers love - that is still our goal. We do not seek to profit off of lawsuits. In fact, they are very costly. We sue to protect our intellectual property from infringement, not to make money. Unfortunately, this is a necessary cost doing of business when you are a successful industry leader and you have a popular and well known consumer brand.

9) We are not a "corporate bully" that uses litigation against companies. We don't target small businesses. We don't focus on the size of a company before suing them. We focus on whether or not their activity is (or has the chance to) harm our company's trademarks or confuse our customers. We do confront companies that purposefully infringe our patents and trademarks. Our intellectual property protection program is reasonable and necessary to protect our intellectual property from misuse by others. We have invested an extraordinary amount of time, money and effort over the last 30 years to innovate new products and designs, and build the Monster brand. It is wrong for companies to leverage our hard work and investment for their own gain. It is unfortunate that so many companies try to build their businesses by copying other companies' innovations and brands - rather than spending the time, effort, and money to innovate on their own.

10) We do not like suing companies. We do not file a lawsuit without having a compelling legal and business reason to do so, and only after giving the infringing party ample warning and sufficient opportunity to resolve the matter on reasonable terms. A lawsuit is a last resort option as everyone except the attorney loses.

11) We dislike frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, and would never engage in a lawsuit that was frivolous or without merit. 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.

There are tens of millions of Monster fans who love our company and love our products. Our company and employees' passion 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 hope this information helps. We value you as a customer, and hope you stay with us. We feel that our product quality and innovation is second to none, and would like for you to continue to enjoy your music and video in the best way possible.

If you would like to talk with me about this, or if this email does not answer your questions, please email me at truth@monstercable.com, or feel free to call me by phone.

Sincerely,

David Tognotti

General Manager

Direct: 415-840-2109

Toll Free: 877-800-8989 x2109



Attachments:

The Original Monster Trademark

TTAB Apple

TTAB EBAY

TTAB Virgin

TTAB Amazon



List of Monster Trademarks in the U.S.:



Mark


First Use


Class No


Goods

MONSTER


06/15/2000


28


Sporting Goods

MONSTER ATTITUDE


07/02/2001


25


Clothing, namely, t-shirts, sweatshirts, jackets, pants, and caps.

MONSTER


10/26/2000


09


Electronic game accessories, namely, electrical cables, electrical connectors and video game interactive remote control units.

MONSTER


05/19/1978


09


Electrical and musical signal transmitting cable and connectors.

MONSTER


06/01/1989


16


Newsletters and catalogs providing entertainment industry and cable industry news.

MONSTER


12/20/1983


25


Clothing, namely, sweatshirts, t-shirts, pants, jackets, and caps.

MONSTER (new font)


12/31/1998


09


Electrical and optical cables, wires and connectors for use with audio and video components.

MONSTER BASS


07/31/1991


09


Electrical and electronic control devices, namely electrical and electromagnetic signal transmitting, amplifying, receiving, and converting devices, namely, cables, wires, connectors, and control devices for use with electrical, electronic, and computer devices.

MONSTER BUCKS


12/31/1988


35


Marketing and product promotion services for others; namely, by distribution of product reward coupons to sales representatives for redemption and/or redistribution to clients.

MONSTER CABLE


05/18/1978


09


Musical and voice signals transmitting cable and connectors therefore.

MONSTER CABLE


05/19/1978


09


Electrical signal transmitting cable and connectors therefor.

MONSTER CABLE (cable design)


05/19/1978


06


Speaker wire.

MONSTER CABLE (Stylized)


11/26/1984


09


Computer cables.

MONSTER CABLE SPECIAL


01/20/1982


09


Audio Cable.

MONSTER CAR AUDIO


05/30/1994


09


Car audio cables, power and audio cables, power cable terminators, ground cables, distributor blocks, fuse holders, car battery terminal collets, audio interconnects, and contact ring terminals.

MONSTER CENTRAL


08/25/1998


09


Electrical signals distribution panels, boards, boxes, consoles and machines; and parts of and accessories for such goods.

MONSTER CENTRAL


08/27/1998


11


Lighting, namely lighting fixtures.

MONSTER CENTRAL Design (House)


01/01/1999


09


Electrical and electromagnetic signal transmitting, amplifying, receiving, and converting devices, namely, cables, wires, connectors, and control devices for use with electrical, electronic, and computer devices; audio equipment, namely, loudspeakers; stereo amplifiers; recording media, namely, compact discs having prerecorded music; telephone and mobile phone equipment and accessories namely telephone and mobile phone cables, phone connectors and telephone surge suppressors; computer hardware and accessories therefore, namely, video equipment, namely, video processors and transmission apparatus; electronic game equipment and accessories, namely, video game cables and connectors; electrical power controllers and accessories therefore, namely, surge suppressors; energy conditioning devices, namely, voltage regulators for electric power; rechargeable and non-rechargeable electrical cells and batteries; power cell re-chargers, namely, battery chargers.

MONSTER CLAMPS


01/01/1990


09


Electrical cable clamps.

MONSTER COMPUTER


12/31/1996


09


Computer Cables.

MONSTER CONNECTION


12/30/1990


16


Newsletter about consumer electronics.

MONSTER DESIGN


01/01/1988


09


Cable connectors for use with audio equipment.

MONSTER DIGITAL


12/31/1998


09


Electrical signal transmitting cable and connectors.

MONSTER DIGITAL CAMERA


06/27/2001


09


Rechargeable and non-rechargeable power cells and power cell re-chargers; camera cases and camera canvas bags.

MONSTER FLATSCREEN (Stylized)


11/03/2006


09


Electrical and electromagnetic signal transmitting, amplifying, receiving, and converting devices, namely, cables, wires, connectors, and control devices for use with electrical, electronic, and computer devices; TV displays and mounts; video equipment and accessories; electrical power control components and accessories; and energy conditioning devices.

MONSTER GAME


11/13/2000


09


Electrical and electronic control devices, namely, electrical and electromagnetic signal transmitting, amplifying, receiving, and converting devices, namely, cables, wires, connectors, and control devices for use with electrical, electronic, and computer devices, namely, electrical and electronic signal wireless remote controllers and electrical and electronic signal controllers; electrical control components and accessories, namely, power conditioners, power cell re-chargers, power amplifiers, voltage stabilizers, current stabilizers, electrical surge protectors, circuit chargers, and circuit breakers.

MONSTER GAME (Stylized & Design)


11/13/2000


09


Electrical and electronic control devices, namely, electrical and electromagnetic signal transmitting, amplifying, receiving, and converting devices, namely, cables, wires, connectors, and control devices for use with electrical, electronic, and computer devices, namely, electrical and electronic signal wireless remote controllers and electrical and electronic signal controllers; electrical control components and accessories, namely, power conditioners, power cell re-chargers, power amplifiers, voltage stabilizers, current stabilizers, electrical surge protectors, circuit chargers, and circuit breakers.

MONSTER GARAGE


12/17/2002


09


Motion picture films; pre-recorded video disks and audio-visual recordings; pre-recorded videotapes; pre-recorded compact disc; DVDs and CD-ROMs; all of the above goods featuring subject matter related to the television series of the same name that features the reconstruction of automobiles into unique motor vehicle devices.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


41


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

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


14


Jewelry, necklaces, bracelets, tie tacks, watch bands, clocks, watches.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


09


Sunglasses, video game discs and cartridges, computer game software.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


16


Removable tattoos, notebooks, calendars, books, namely nonfiction books on topics related to automobiles and automotive issues, decals, bumper stickers, stationary, namely writing paper, note cards, postcards, diaries, paper stationary portfolios, binders, collector's trading cards.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


20


Picture frames, novelty pillows, sleeping bags, plastic key chains, non-metal key fobs, non-metal key holders, plastic novelty license plates.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


21


Mugs, drinking glasses, paper cups, paper plates, pitchers, plastic bottles sold empty, thermal insulated containers for beverages, lunch boxes, ceramic figurines, china, glass crystal and porcelain ornaments, exclusive of Christmas tree ornaments, decanters, cookie jars.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


11


Flashlights.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


25


Clothing, namely tops, jerseys, sweaters, vests, skirts, shorts, pants, blazers, jackets, coats, scarves, wristbands, sleepwear, robes, socks, underwear, leggings, leotards, jogging suits, belts, swimwear, cover-ups, rainwear; headwear, namely, caps, hats, beanies, headbands, bandanas; footwear.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


28


Board games, toy cars and toy trucks, dolls, doll clothes and doll accessories, role-playing games, hand-held unit for playing electronic games, playing cards.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


06


Metal key fobs, metal key chains, metal key rings, metal key holders, metal license plates.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


26


Embroidered patches for clothing, belt buckles not of precious metal, ornamental novelty buttons.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


16


Posters, stickers, stationery.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


25


Clothing, namely, t-shirts, thermal shirts, sweatshirts, handwear, namely gloves and headwear, namely, beanies.

MONSTER GARAGE


06/23/2002


28


Toy vehicles, toy model vehicles, radio controlled toy vehicles.

MONSTER GARAGE and design


06/23/2002


09


Motion picture films; pre-recorded video disks and audio-visual recordings; pre-recorded videotapes; pre-recorded compact disc; DVDs and CD-ROMs; all of the above goods featuring subject matter related to the television series of the same name that features the reconstruction of automobiles into unique motor vehicle devices.

MONSTER GARAGE and Design


06/23/2002


41


Entertainment services in the nature of a television series regarding the reconstruction of automobiles into unique motor vehicle devices; provision of information related to television program of the same name via the internet.

MONSTER GEAR


10/07/2005


25


Clothing, namely T-shirts, jackets, hats, polo shirts and vests.

MONSTER GEAR


10/17/2005


18


Luggage.

MONSTER HOME THEATRE


06/30/1993


09


Audio cables

MONSTER HOUSE


06/02/2003


41


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

MONSTER INTERNET


03/31/1997


09


Computer cables and telephone cables. (as amended)

MONSTER LOCK


08/07/1998


09


Electrical connectors.

MONSTER MARINE


07/01/2004


09


Electrical and electromagnetic signal transmitting, amplifying, receiving and converting devices, namely, cables, wires, connectors, and control devices for use with marine electrical, electronic and computer devices, loudspeakers, stereo amplifiers; marine telephone components, namely, cables, wires and connectors; marine computer components, namely, cables, wires and connectors; marine electrical power control components namely, power conditioners, voltage surge suppressors; marine mobile phone equipment, namely, cables, wires and connectors.

MONSTER MICROPHONE


04/16/1998


09


Microphones, namely microphone cables.

MONSTER MINTS


01/08/2004


30


Mint candy.

MONSTER MOBILE


09/14/2001


09


Mobile telephone accessories, namely battery rechargers.

MONSTER MOBILE


09/14/2001


09


Electrical equipment for recharging batteries.

MONSTER MOUNTS


04/02/1998


09


Loudspeaker mounting units

MONSTER MULTIMEDIA


03/28/1997


09


Audio and video products, namely cables, switch boxes and junction boxes.

MONSTER MUSIC


01/01/1988


41


Production of compact discs.

MONSTER MUSIC


01/01/1988


42


Distributorship services in the field of prerecorded compact discs of various artists. (as amended)

MONSTER MUSIC


06/03/1988


09


Compact Discs.

MONSTER NETWORKING


06/10/1997


09


Connectors and cables for the transmission of data signals.

MONSTER PARK


09/28/2004


25


Men's, women's and children's clothing namely knit and woven tops, bottoms, shorts, t-shirts, pants, socks, hats, caps, footwear and nightshirts.
...

[Message clipped] View entire message
 
Hmm - they still make hideously overpriced cables with hideously inflated claims of "performance gains," so I still remain suspicious...he makes some good points though.
 
Bunch of fucking wankers - "whoo, look at us, we can enforce obviously too-wide trademarks to piss off soda companies because Amazon and eBay did it!" - and that really didn't help their case at all in my eyes.

Jeff
 
6) We want to end this lawsuit as much as anyone.
We have made many overtures of a very very inexpensive licensing arrangement to Monster Mini Golf which would allow them to use the name, while at the same time keep our trademark rights intact. They refused, so we had no option but to file a lawsuit. Monster Mini Golf can easily avoid the costs of a lawsuit, and save everyone time and money if they would license the mark at very little cost to them, and a fraction of the cost of a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

LOL. These guys are full of it. That response only further digs their hole as far as I'm concerned. Don't be wowed by the size of that reply and their attempt to cast their bullying into a favorable light simply because other corporate bullies have set precedent.

But y'know, be careful how much you call them out for it. Given their current streak I wouldn't be surprised if they sued each and every one of us individually for defamation :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Uladyne
FS: Alesis DM5 w/ Rack Case and Ddrum Trigger (Ebay)
Replies
8
Views
1K
Backline
Uladyne
U
J
Look what eBay recommended
Replies
15
Views
685
Bar
Josh M.
J
K
Ibanez Prestige Rg2550
Replies
1
Views
502
Trade / For Sale
kpankulych
K
ratsapprentice
Opine on this Warlock II and help identify a preamp...
Replies
9
Views
444
Backline
drew_drummer
D
D
ESP LTD EC-50 Guitar for sale
Replies
0
Views
205
Trade / For Sale
Deranged-zombie
D
Top Bottom
Back