Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from common,
casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits across the
country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery Channel has
felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally Gaming is under
Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine. Monster sued Walt
Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even the Chicago
Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed by Monster."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from common,
casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits across
the country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery Channel
has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally Gaming is
under Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine. Monster sued
Walt Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even the
Chicago Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed by
Monster."



Damn it! I won't be able to call you an evil monster anymore.

Arny Krueger wrote:
Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from
common,
casual usage:



Noel Lee (aka the 'Head Monster') has long been regarded as one of the
nastiest, greediest and most vile 'monsters' in all of audio. Who else
would hire Jahnaten Scull and send him out to spam Usenet posing as an
end user?


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits
across the
country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery Channel
has
felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally Gaming is
under
Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine. Monster sued
Walt
Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even the
Chicago
Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed by
Monster."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from common,
casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits across
the country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery Channel
has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally Gaming is
under Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine. Monster sued
Walt Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even the
Chicago Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed by
Monster."

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk losing it.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from common,
casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits across
the country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery Channel
has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally Gaming is
under Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine. Monster sued
Walt Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even the
Chicago Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed by
Monster."

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk losing it.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from common,
casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits across
the country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery Channel
has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally Gaming is
under Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine. Monster sued
Walt Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even the
Chicago Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed by
Monster."

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk losing it.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from common,
casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits across
the country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery Channel
has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally Gaming is
under Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine. Monster sued
Walt Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even the
Chicago Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed by
Monster."

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk losing it.


(I'm 1 for 3, not bad!)

Anyways, Mikey, you are saying that anyone can incorporate
a common word in the English language into a corporate name,
then trademark the corporate name, and then somehow, they 'own'
the common English word. Ridiculous!
You have proven yourself to be an idiot yet again.
Oh, I remember just a few days ago you said
that when you make a mistake, you will freely
admit it. Here is your chance!!!!

Clyde Slick wrote:



(I'm 1 for 3, not bad!)


Is that with or without the Viagara, Art?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from common,
casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits across
the country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery
Channel has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally
Gaming is under Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine.
Monster sued Walt Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters,
Inc." Even the Chicago Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once
were eyed by Monster."

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk losing it.


(I'm 1 for 3, not bad!)

Anyways, Mikey, you are saying that anyone can incorporate
a common word in the English language into a corporate name,
then trademark the corporate name, and then somehow, they 'own'
the common English word. Ridiculous!

Of course it is, that's why I didn't say it.

You have proven yourself to be an idiot yet again.

You've proven once again that you can take what I say and ascribe your own
meaning to it.

Oh, I remember just a few days ago you said
that when you make a mistake, you will freely
admit it. Here is your chance!!!!

3rd times a charm?


It's similar to the way McDonald's takes people to court for using names
like one motel chain did when they tried to use the name McSleep, or the way
Bose takes people to court if they build a 6th order bandpass subwoofer
without permission from them.

Yes, Monster is trying to take a common word and they are going to far with
it. But as I understand trademarks, if you have one, particularly a well
known one, you are obliged to try and keep others from using it and
diminishing or removing it's recognition. I never implied or tried to imply
that what Monster was doing was sensible or that they should prevail, I was
simply trying to give a reason for why they would be doing it.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:



(I'm 1 for 3, not bad!)


Is that with or without the Viagara, Art?


Cialis. I'll be up all weekend.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from
common, casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits across
the country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery
Channel has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally
Gaming is under Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine.
Monster sued Walt Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters,
Inc." Even the Chicago Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once
were eyed by Monster."

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk losing it.


(I'm 1 for 3, not bad!)

Anyways, Mikey, you are saying that anyone can incorporate
a common word in the English language into a corporate name,
then trademark the corporate name, and then somehow, they 'own'
the common English word. Ridiculous!

Of course it is, that's why I didn't say it.

You have proven yourself to be an idiot yet again.

You've proven once again that you can take what I say and ascribe your own
meaning to it.

Oh, I remember just a few days ago you said
that when you make a mistake, you will freely
admit it. Here is your chance!!!!

3rd times a charm?


It's similar to the way McDonald's takes people to court for using names
like one motel chain did when they tried to use the name McSleep, or the
way Bose takes people to court if they build a 6th order bandpass
subwoofer without permission from them.

Yes, Monster is trying to take a common word and they are going to far
with it. But as I understand trademarks, if you have one, particularly a
well known one, you are obliged to try and keep others from using it and
diminishing or removing it's recognition. I never implied or tried to
imply that what Monster was doing was sensible or that they should
prevail, I was simply trying to give a reason for why they would be doing
it.


so, in the morning, you'll be running
down to the trademark office to register "stupid".

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from
common, casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits
across the country against companies using the word "monster."
Discovery Channel has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster
Garage." Bally Gaming is under Monster's glare because of its
Monster slot machine. Monster sued Walt Disney Co., maker of the
animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even the Chicago Bears, a.k.a.
"The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed by Monster."

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk losing
it.

The stupidity started when they tried to make a single common English word
into a trademark.

In the past people have used trademarks that were proper nouns or names
(e.g. Bose), made-up words (e.g. Frigidare), or phrases (e.g. Big Mac) for
their trademarks. This can work, particularly if the trademark is
agressively protected by ongoing vigillance and legal action.

Now, Monster Cable wants to sieze a common word, and make it their
trademark. Hopefully, they will be rewarded with the humiliation and
derision that they deserve on a number of levels.

Anyways, Mikey, you are saying that anyone can incorporate
a common word in the English language into a corporate name,
then trademark the corporate name, and then somehow, they 'own'
the common English word. Ridiculous!

Of course it is, that's why I didn't say it.

Agreed. Now Mike, you are talking about Art's stupidity, which is as
pervasive in Art's life, as stupidity is pervasive in the life of Monster
Cable..

You have proven yourself to be an idiot yet again.

Yes, Art proves himself to be an idiot on an ongoing basis.

You've proven once again that you can take what I say and ascribe
your own meaning to it.

Exactly. In the case of Art, the meaning is almost always idiotic and
self-contrdictory.

Oh, I remember just a few days ago you said
that when you make a mistake, you will freely
admit it. Here is your chance!!!!

3rd times a charm?

It's similar to the way McDonald's takes people to court for using
names like one motel chain did when they tried to use the name
McSleep, or the way Bose takes people to court if they build a 6th
order bandpass subwoofer without permission from them.

The difference is that in these cases there were more-or-less unique, or at
least uncommon entities. Monster is common word.

Yes, Monster is trying to take a common word and they are going to
far with it. But as I understand trademarks, if you have one,
particularly a well known one, you are obliged to try and keep others
from using it and diminishing or removing it's recognition.

Monster might pull it off, but it will probably be at a considerable
expense. Further more, as this Denver Post article shows, they will receive
a certain amount of public derision and humiliation for their efforts.

I never implied or tried to imply that what Monster was doing was sensible
or
that they should prevail, I was simply trying to give a reason for
why they would be doing it.

Agreed. Art wakes up every morning thinking that he's smart, so we have to
bear with his ongoing dumb-ass pseudo-intellectual escapades. Maybe if we
all pooled our money together, we could buy or rent Art a clue! Art is like
Dormer, Phillips, and Richman; he's a Middius dupe. To join the Middius
clique, Middius dupes have to sacrifice what little is left of their minds
so that they can be subservient to their know-nothing grand master or
idiocy, George Middius.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from
common, casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html




The stupidity started when they tried to make a single common English word
into a trademark.

In the past people have used trademarks that were proper nouns or names
(e.g. Bose), made-up words (e.g. Frigidare), or phrases (e.g. Big Mac) for
their trademarks. This can work, particularly if the trademark is
agressively protected by ongoing vigillance and legal action.

Now, Monster Cable wants to sieze a common word, and make it their
trademark. Hopefully, they will be rewarded with the humiliation and
derision that they deserve on a number of levels.

Anyways, Mikey, you are saying that anyone can incorporate
a common word in the English language into a corporate name,
then trademark the corporate name, and then somehow, they 'own'
the common English word. Ridiculous!

Of course it is, that's why I didn't say it.

Agreed. Now Mike, you are talking about Art's stupidity, which is as
pervasive in Art's life, as stupidity is pervasive in the life of Monster
Cable..



Duh.. Arny. We agreed about the isuue.

Arny Krueger wrote:



Art is like
Dormer, Phillips, and Richman; he's a Middius dupe.
snip
subservient to their know-nothing grand master of
idiocy, George Middius.

Bingo!

"Michael McKelvy" said:

It's similar to the way McDonald's takes people to court for using names
like one motel chain did when they tried to use the name McSleep, ...

Will you still be able to call yourself McKelvy then? :-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" said:

It's similar to the way McDonald's takes people to court for using names
like one motel chain did when they tried to use the name McSleep, ...

Will you still be able to call yourself McKelvy then? :-)

--
As long as I don't make any McBurgers.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from
common, casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits
across the country against companies using the word "monster."
Discovery Channel has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster
Garage." Bally Gaming is under Monster's glare because of its
Monster slot machine. Monster sued Walt Disney Co., maker of the
animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even the Chicago Bears, a.k.a.
"The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed by Monster."

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk losing
it.

The stupidity started when they tried to make a single common English word
into a trademark.

In the past people have used trademarks that were proper nouns or names
(e.g. Bose), made-up words (e.g. Frigidare), or phrases (e.g. Big Mac) for
their trademarks. This can work, particularly if the trademark is
agressively protected by ongoing vigillance and legal action.

Now, Monster Cable wants to sieze a common word, and make it their
trademark. Hopefully, they will be rewarded with the humiliation and
derision that they deserve on a number of levels.

I don't expect they will prevail, but it is a strategy that has been used by
other companies in the past, I don't recall any that prevailed.


Anyways, Mikey, you are saying that anyone can incorporate
a common word in the English language into a corporate name,
then trademark the corporate name, and then somehow, they 'own'
the common English word. Ridiculous!

Of course it is, that's why I didn't say it.

Agreed. Now Mike, you are talking about Art's stupidity, which is as
pervasive in Art's life, as stupidity is pervasive in the life of Monster
Cable..

You have proven yourself to be an idiot yet again.

Yes, Art proves himself to be an idiot on an ongoing basis.

You've proven once again that you can take what I say and ascribe
your own meaning to it.

Exactly. In the case of Art, the meaning is almost always idiotic and
self-contrdictory.

He seems obsessed.

I thought I was gonna gag when I saw that he wrote "anyways." Even for the
grammatically challenged, such as myself, that's a bad one. Worse than from
whence.


Oh, I remember just a few days ago you said
that when you make a mistake, you will freely
admit it. Here is your chance!!!!

3rd times a charm?

It's similar to the way McDonald's takes people to court for using
names like one motel chain did when they tried to use the name
McSleep, or the way Bose takes people to court if they build a 6th
order bandpass subwoofer without permission from them.

The difference is that in these cases there were more-or-less unique, or
at least uncommon entities. Monster is common word.

Yes, Monster is trying to take a common word and they are going to
far with it. But as I understand trademarks, if you have one,
particularly a well known one, you are obliged to try and keep others
from using it and diminishing or removing it's recognition.

Monster might pull it off, but it will probably be at a considerable
expense. Further more, as this Denver Post article shows, they will
receive a certain amount of public derision and humiliation for their
efforts.

I never implied or tried to imply that what Monster was doing was
sensible or
that they should prevail, I was simply trying to give a reason for
why they would be doing it.

Agreed. Art wakes up every morning thinking that he's smart, so we have to
bear with his ongoing dumb-ass pseudo-intellectual escapades. Maybe if we
all pooled our money together, we could buy or rent Art a clue!

Someone once said, "You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him
think."

Art is like
Dormer, Phillips, and Richman; he's a Middius dupe. To join the Middius
clique, Middius dupes have to sacrifice what little is left of their minds
so that they can be subservient to their know-nothing grand master or
idiocy, George Middius.
I think that's a bit of a stretch, I just think doesn't feel right unless
he's ****ed about something.

The paranoid personality posting as "George M. Middius" croaked:
Paul Dormer said to The Big ****:

The only Middius dupe here is.... YOU.

He's been pulling various strings for the best part of a decade,
and
all the while you've been his gimp.

I don't want the Krooborg to be my anything. What am I bid for that
disgusting tumor of a person?



Face the facts, "George", without Arny, your life would be devoid of
"purpose". You'd probably eventually kill yourself.

Hey,there's a thought! Arny, could you take a, say, six month break
from Usenet? )

a écrit :

Face the facts, "George", without Arny, your life would be devoid of
"purpose".

LOL !

a écrit :

Face the facts, "George", without Arny, your life would be devoid of
"purpose".

LOL !

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from
common,
casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits
across
the country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery
Channel
has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally
Gaming is
under Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine. Monster
sued
Walt Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even
the
Chicago Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed
by
Monster."

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk losing
it.

Actually it's just plain stupid. There is no one else in the audio
industry using "monster" in their trademarks. Going after usage in
unrelated industries is both wrong and stupid. They should lose any
lawsuits should they get to court.

Scott Wheeler

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from
common, casual usage:


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits
across the country against companies using the word "monster."
Discovery Channel has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster
Garage." Bally Gaming is under Monster's glare because of its
Monster slot machine. Monster sued Walt Disney Co., maker of the
animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even the Chicago Bears, a.k.a.
"The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed by Monster."

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk
losing
it.

The stupidity started when they tried to make a single common English
word
into a trademark.

Nah, This is common practice.



In the past people have used trademarks that were proper nouns or
names
(e.g. Bose), made-up words (e.g. Frigidare), or phrases (e.g. Big
Mac) for
their trademarks. This can work, particularly if the trademark is
agressively protected by ongoing vigillance and legal action.

There are plenty of common words used as trademarks.



Now, Monster Cable wants to sieze a common word, and make it their
trademark.

Well, they have.


Hopefully, they will be rewarded with the humiliation and
derision that they deserve on a number of levels.

Hopefully. But not for using Monster as a trade mark. Their problem is
thinking that trademarks prevent others from using a common word in
unrelated areas. If another cable company started using Monster as a
trade mark then they would have a legitimate gripe.



Anyways, Mikey, you are saying that anyone can incorporate
a common word in the English language into a corporate name,
then trademark the corporate name, and then somehow, they 'own'
the common English word. Ridiculous!

Of course it is, that's why I didn't say it.

Agreed. Now Mike, you are talking about Art's stupidity, which is as
pervasive in Art's life, as stupidity is pervasive in the life of
Monster
Cable..

They are being stupid in this case. I'm not sure thay have been stupid
all along. They do seem to be a fairly successful business. That
usually takes some smarts.



You have proven yourself to be an idiot yet again.

Yes, Art proves himself to be an idiot on an ongoing basis.

You've proven once again that you can take what I say and ascribe
your own meaning to it.

Exactly. In the case of Art, the meaning is almost always idiotic and

self-contrdictory.

Oh, I remember just a few days ago you said
that when you make a mistake, you will freely
admit it. Here is your chance!!!!

3rd times a charm?

It's similar to the way McDonald's takes people to court for using
names like one motel chain did when they tried to use the name
McSleep, or the way Bose takes people to court if they build a 6th
order bandpass subwoofer without permission from them.

The difference is that in these cases there were more-or-less unique,
or at
least uncommon entities. Monster is common word.

That isn't the difference or the issue. Trade marks cases depend on
whether or not the usage of a word or phrase that is believed to be
trademarked will create confusion in the market place. Trade mrks are
there to protect brand identification, that is all.





Yes, Monster is trying to take a common word and they are going to
far with it. But as I understand trademarks, if you have one,
particularly a well known one, you are obliged to try and keep
others
from using it and diminishing or removing it's recognition.

Monster might pull it off, but it will probably be at a considerable
expense.

I would be surprised if they win in court. No one else I know of is
making cables or any audio product and calling it monster.

Further more, as this Denver Post article shows, they will receive
a certain amount of public derision and humiliation for their
efforts.

As they should.



I never implied or tried to imply that what Monster was doing was
sensible
or
that they should prevail, I was simply trying to give a reason for
why they would be doing it.

Agreed. Art wakes up every morning thinking that he's smart, so we
have to
bear with his ongoing dumb-ass pseudo-intellectual escapades. Maybe
if we
all pooled our money together, we could buy or rent Art a clue! Art
is like
Dormer, Phillips, and Richman; he's a Middius dupe. To join the
Middius
clique, Middius dupes have to sacrifice what little is left of their
minds
so that they can be subservient to their know-nothing grand master or
idiocy, George Middius.

Get a life.


Scott Wheeler

In article . net,
says...

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk losing it.

It would make sense if it was in a market they had a product in. I doubt
they are going into the vintage clothing or kids skiing instructional video
business. I'm sure that there are also companies that used the monster
name before the monster cable idiots did, so who really owns the name?
---------------
Alex

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:17:58 GMT, Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Monster Cable seems to be trying to remove the word Monster from common,
casual usage:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

"The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits across
the country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery Channel
has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally Gaming is
under Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine. Monster sued
Walt Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters, Inc." Even the
Chicago Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once were eyed by
Monster."

It's stupid, but they have to defend their trademark or risk losing it.

They don't have any garage products. The lawsuit is frivolous and
monster will be lucky if they don't get slapped with a countersuit.

Even with their amazing levels of greed, you don't see microsoft going after
housing window companies. Reason: microsoft isn't in the construction
business.