So, I wonder why Monster Cable relented when they went after Madmartian.com
(monster.biz - "monster shop") and not with these other companies?

"Doc" wrote in message
nk.net...
So, I wonder why Monster Cable relented when they went after
Madmartian.com
(monster.biz - "monster shop") and not with these other companies?



see my e-mail to monster and the reply I recieved below.

Fellows - (I hesitate to use the terms "Sirs" or "Gentlemen");

After reading the stories of your viciously litigious nature, I will no
longer purchase or use any products from your seriously morally deficient
company.

BTW - have you sued Hardee's over their Monster Thick Burgers yet?
Don't want to miss out on that fine opportunity!

Steve Hoover
owner - Steve Hoover Productions
Edwardsville, IL

the reply:

Dear Mr. Hoover,

I hope you will take the time to read our side of the story. I’ve attached
the response to all of these allegations that was written by the owner of
our company.

Regards,
Daniel Graham

the attached word file:


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 not try to harm a company whose focus is on ski
education programs and products for children. They will be issuing a
clarification on their web site in a few days.

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. The videos with Yomi
Agunbiade, director of Recreation and Parks, that is up on our web site
shows our compassion for kids at the opening of Monster Park.
http://www.monsterparksf.com/fun/Mov...4tailgate_12MB

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
are not suing them or taking any action against them and did not do so when
they filed the tradmarks. These marks have been allowed by the Trademark
Office, just as our 50+ marks in the various classes listed below. Unless
they interfere with any of these marks or dilute the “Monster” brand, we don
’t object.

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 five 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.


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/a...50D-14DE-4364-
AC615684D93E6CBE/catID/D8932879-DC34-43DF-BF65FC92D55FEE5D#18C5EF1D-16AD-4F2
A-B7EF7D691972BE58)

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

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


8) I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, and would never
engage in a lawsuit that was frivolous. They are a waste of the public’s
money, and the time of the parties involved. In fact, the courts do not
allow “frivolous” lawsuits to proceed. The courts have procedural
safeguards to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, as well as penalties (like Rule
11) that can be levied against attorneys and parties who bring such suits.
We have never been accused by a court of filing frivolous lawsuits.

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

10) There are millions of Monster fans who love our company and love our
products. My passion for the products and unrelenting drive to innovate and
create the highest quality products is well known in the industry and with
consumers. Where most companies find out how to take quality out of
something to reduce costs, we find how we can “improve” products and make
them the best of class. That’s why our customers love Monster products.

I am very sad indeed to see misinformation out there as it wrongfully
portrays the company to be a corporate bully, when nothing could be further
from the truth.

If anyone wants to talk with me about this, or if this email does not answer
your questions, please email me at .
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



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

"skhoover" wrote in message
...

"Doc" wrote in message
nk.net...
So, I wonder why Monster Cable relented when they went after
Madmartian.com
(monster.biz - "monster shop") and not with these other companies?



see my e-mail to monster and the reply I recieved below.

Noel Lee writes: "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."

Rumors? Misinformation? False accusations? That's really funny.

They can state whatever they wish to about not suing someone over using the name
"monster" but that's obviously what they did in 2002 when they sued Mike
Shkolnik at Mad Martian (Mike owned monster.biz.) A copy of the lawsuit Monster
filed against Mike in United States District Court is he
http://www.madmartian.com/legal/filing1.htm

I was one of many, many people who personally called and emailed Monster's COO,
Irene Baran, regarding this. Mike's complete story is he
http://www.madmartian.com/legal/

Not that I would have been a Monster Cable customer before, but you can bet hell
would have to freeze over twice before I'll do business with them after this.

John LeBlanc
Houston, TX

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:35:30 -0600, "skhoover"
wrote:

see my e-mail to monster and the reply I recieved below.

...

Dear Mr. Hoover,

I hope you will take the time to read our side of the story. I’ve attached
the response to all of these allegations that was written by the owner of
our company.

Regards,
Daniel Graham

the attached word file:


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

I didn't see a date on this and wondered when it was written. These
two links from a Google search have (from a cursory look) the same
text as your attached word file, and were posted Jan. 7:

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/prin...d.php?t=219818
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums...1&postcount=44

The later responses in the sitepoint forum by MnstrRE (claiming to
be an employee/represent Monster Cable) are interesting. He listed
several product lines besides cable that Monster makes, furniture
(!?!), clothing (obviously with the Monster name and logo and/or some
ad slogan), and then there was this statement:

"We are in categories well beyond Cables and that is why we have to
protect our name in categories we have product plans for."

"Categories we have product plans for"??? If someone is already
making a product in a particular category and is using Monster as (or
as part of) a trademarked name, isn't it a slam dunk that the first
registered user of a name in a category has precedence?

IANAL, usual disclaimers apply...

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:48:36 GMT, Ben Bradley
wrote:

IANAL, usual disclaimers apply...

But, as the Bard said "First, kill all the lawyers."

Times are so out of control that finding an issue that we
can actually do something about is very refreshing. AND
boycott WalMart!

Chris Hornbeck
"Happiness isn't something you experience; it's something you remember."
-Oscar Levant

"skhoover" wrote in message
...


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

There have been a lot of rumors, misinformation, and false accusations

etc. etc.

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.

Really?

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.

And lots of Asians making and stuffing their pretty cables in pretty boxes.

I feel
fortunate to have been born an American.

Where he can have lots of Asians overseas make his products.


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.

It would appear only because Snowmonsters beat them to it.
Monstervintage.com told MC to stuff it and MC filed suit. Now the
snowmonsters.com site has a whole new page up where supposedly they've
kissed and made up with MC. Not sure what the deal is there, a couple of
weeks ago they were talking all kinds of crap about MC. Noel Lee supposedly
now says snowmonsters is in no way in conflict with MC....Shazaam! No
kiddin'? They had to go through this whole process to decide this?.......?


You can see
what we have recently done with kids at Monster Park.
http://www.monsterparksf.com/fun/Photos.asp. The videos with Yomi
Agunbiade, director of Recreation and Parks, that is up on our web site
shows our compassion for kids at the opening of Monster Park.

Yeah, that's how you show compassion for kids. Make a few showy photo-op
gestures, while you're harrassing the parents of some other kids, such as
monstervintage.com


1) We do not have any trademark infringement lawsuits pending,

Either they or Monstervintage are lying. Per the monstervintage.com site:

"Two years of threatening letters demanding Monstervintage.com to conform
has been nothing less than harassment and intimidation intended to limit the
rights and liberties to further the growth of Monstervintage.com. Now
Monster Cable has filed a 5 Counts Federal Lawsuit for diluting the word
MONSTER (1) Trademark Infringement (2)Federl Unfair Competition (3)
Contributory Trademark Infringement (4) Dilution of Famous Mark (5) State
Unfair Competition & Dilution in attempt to take over the
Monstervintage.com. Domain Name Read More Below."


and we do
not object or take action against businesses just because they sell
products
that have "Monster" in their names.

You mean like "Monster Shrimp"? See the next para.

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.

From the US Patent and trademark website:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?q...&pn2=&cop=&cn=

Regarding the application for trademark "Home Of The Monster Shrimp"

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?r...entry=78329124

Not a lawsuit...yet....I assume they're not filing for an extension to
oppose a trademark for funsies. Wouldn't you call an effort oppose a
trademark an "action"? Perhaps they're waiting to see what they can get out
of the owner of this restaurant first.

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.

See above.

Where most companies find out how to take quality out of
something to reduce costs, we find how we can "improve" products

Love the qualifying "..." around "improve". Maybe he's referring to the
slick color schemes, wrapping and packaging?

I am very sad indeed to see misinformation out there

Me too.

Monster Batteries

You mean those batteries that Energizer took you to task for over dubious
claims?

Sorry, not buying any of it...or any Monster Cable.

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
are not suing them or taking any action against them and did not do so
when
they filed the tradmarks. These marks have been allowed by the Trademark
Office, just as our 50+ marks in the various classes listed below. Unless
they interfere with any of these marks or dilute the "Monster" brand, we
don
't object.

This would seem to conflict with a statement put out by Dave Tognotti, MC's
general counsel:

"We don't have a problem with companies that use "monster" in its ordinary
dictionary meaning, nor do we have problems with companies that use
"monster" as a descriptive term, but we do find issue with those that use
"monster" as a brand identifier or trademark."

ok...snowmonsters.com!? you've got to be kidding me. So who else has had
to buckle under MC's mass and put a link to their site? Ridiculous!
Been looking for a reason to stop dealing this over-rated crap for a
while. Been peddling it too long. Has the boycott started yet?

Next MC will sue the estate of Boris Karloff.

"skhoover" wrote in message
...

I hope you will take the time to read our side of the story. I've attached
the response to all of these allegations that was written by the owner of
our company.

1) We do not have any trademark infringement lawsuits pending,



When was this dated? Monster Vintage now has scans up on their site of what
appears to be lawsuit filings date 7/12/04

that's all I know - I posted it only as a matter of information - it's what
they e-mailed me after I questioned their practices.
Steve Hoover

"Doc" wrote in message
ink.net...

"skhoover" wrote in message
...

I hope you will take the time to read our side of the story. I've
attached
the response to all of these allegations that was written by the owner
of
our company.

1) We do not have any trademark infringement lawsuits pending,



When was this dated? Monster Vintage now has scans up on their site of
what
appears to be lawsuit filings date 7/12/04