Boycott Monster Cable - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 06:43 AM
Senior Member
 
PolkThug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kansas
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Jake Sm
I think that if the bashers were REALLY in this just for purposes of promoting "integrity in business practices" they could have better and more real effect in directing their energies to where it might accomplish something , like the way laws are written...if the litigation is allowed , there will be lawyers sueing...
Sure, I could send a letter to my "Congressperson" about law reform, but right now, I am having a "more real effect" by selling less Monster cables at the store I work at. I am directly influencing consumer purchasing decisions. I used to sell a lot of Monster cables until I found out about this whole situation via the Internet. This is one battle that many people here on the forum can have a direct influence on.

Regards,
PolkThug
PolkThug is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 06:43 AM
 
fredanderson21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Jake,

as Shakespeare wrote:

"me thinketh thou doth protest too much"

In every post you are sounding more and more desperate!!!

Your point of defending the business practices of Monster by saying there is worse examples holds no water. Anyone could say that there are ALWAYS worse examples. But they in no way makes it right for Monster to do it.

Your also are trying to blame the current legal system for there litigation madness. Sorry - no. Monster has made a conscious decision to go after all of these little guys and probably force them out of business. Even though a small t-shirt company could NEVER affect Monster's bottom line.

I cannot save the world - but I can choose to support companies that practice good business ethics. Sometimes I may be forced by my job to use a product that disagrees with my philosophy (like Microsoft Windows). But when I am making a choice within my power I will go with a company/product that I can feel good about.
fredanderson21 is offline  
post #93 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 06:52 AM
Senior Member
 
BlackbeardsSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brew City, WI
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Cliff Watson
The following are Ray Kimber's UNEDITED comments regarding Monster Cable:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Ray Kimber (Permission to copy and/or cross post this, without editing, is granted)
Welcome to Cliff Notes! :)

Professional painter/decorator.
BlackbeardsSaint is offline  
post #94 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 07:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JorgeLopez11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MEXICO CITY
Posts: 1,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Jake,

as Shakespeare wrote:

"me thinketh thou doth protest too much"

In every post you are sounding more and more desperate!!!

Your point of defending the business practices of Monster by saying there is worse examples holds no water. Anyone could say that there are ALWAYS worse examples. But they in no way makes it right for Monster to do it.

Your also are trying to blame the current legal system for there litigation madness. Sorry - no. Monster has made a conscious decision to go after all of these little guys and probably force them out of business. Even though a small t-shirt company could NEVER affect Monster's bottom line.

I cannot save the world - but I can choose to support companies that practice good business ethics. Sometimes I may be forced by my job to use a product that disagrees with my philosophy (like Microsoft Windows). But when I am making a choice within my power I will go with a company/product that I can feel good about.
Fredanderson,

Great post indeed! :)
JorgeLopez11 is offline  
post #95 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 07:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Jake,

Scott provided a link of the companies that are being sued by Monster. You have indicated that it is common for companies to vigrorously sue to protect their trademarks. Could you please provide some links to audio or video companies doing the same thing?

Thanks
Randybes is offline  
post #96 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 08:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Interesting-Probably should invite Kimber to post over here. I have sent him an email.
Randybes is offline  
post #97 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 08:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Mathew J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Jake Sm
I'm glad we have YOU as the arbiter of what people do and do not need, I feel much better now Mommy.
Don't you feel like a big fat hypocrite?? I mean you are one of the bigger anti Bose posters yet here you are defending a $hitbag company like monster and their business practices which are decidedly suck?.
Mathew J is offline  
post #98 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 08:31 AM
Senior Member
 
Mathew J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Randybes
Jake,

Scott provided a link of the companies that are being sued by Monster. You have indicated that it is common for companies to vigrorously sue to protect their trademarks. Could you please provide some links to audio or video companies doing the same thing?

Thanks
I would like to see this list also, it is one thing to sue because there would be an obvious breach of trademark say if the company also sold cables and was caled Monstorous Cable co....but what Monster is doing, combined with the fact that they greatly overprice their tripe and then have resellers push it on individuals with such ferocity as seen in the gamecube thread is rather sickening and makes Bose and others IMHO look like saints...I myself even had a few retail salespeople try to viciously convince me that unless I had monster, or more specifically the $140 HDMI cable that my performance would greatly suffer....

Jake it is one thing if a company makes a quality product and it commands a high price and is seen by the public as a market leader, it is another when the same company uses strongarm tactics to not only punish other totally unrelated small companies to pay a penalty which is undeserving but also force consumers through shady retaillers to purchase their products through threats of quality loss.

it seems as if you are insinuating that Monster makes the best cable on the market and are worthy of the prices charged wheras many others, myself included feel most of what they offer sucks and is grossly overpriced.
Mathew J is offline  
post #99 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 08:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just received a reply from Ray Kimber and here it is--

"Dear Randy,

I tried to post a reply, but i needed to use a link in my reply. it said i have to have 5 postings before i can do that. it erased my post that i did on a micro keyboard, im at ces. argh!
i stand by my comments and my responses on audioasylum and madisound forum. the link i wanted to point out is http://www.stopthemonster.com/truelies.html
my comment is that legal wrangling as noted in the above link is costly and i think is like a fight done in a dark back alley, instead of in a lighted ring with a referee, like a "lawsuit". I think snowmonster did a good thing by leaving the alley and going for the light. noel can say there are no lawsuits, but that response seems to be standing on parsed definitions
please post this if you can. I can't give answers due to lack of time setting up at ces and the microkeybard at ces. given my postings on the other sites it should cover questions about what i am saying and why
Ray "


Randy
----- Original Message -----
Randybes is offline  
post #100 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 09:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Grooms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Villages, Fl
Posts: 2,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally posted by SVonhof
Does anyone know any mucky-mucks at the places that sell Monster Cables such as Best Buy, Curcuit City or Good Guys? Maybe we could somehow convince the upper management level of those retail places that it would be in their best interest not to sell the cables?

That is one thing that could put a Monster Hurt on Monster Cable. For one of their bread-and-butter sales places to stop selling their stuff. THAT would be a statement.
LMAO, You have to much free time.

Hear me now, Listen to me later....
Tom Grooms is offline  
post #101 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 09:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Mathew J
Don't you feel like a big fat hypocrite?? I mean you are one of the bigger anti Bose posters yet here you are defending a $hitbag company like monster and their business practices which are decidedly suck?.
Jake only likes to be ripped off by "the best" :)

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #102 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 09:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ellisr63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the Home Theater
Posts: 1,936
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Has anyone emailed Noel Lee? I did and his response was "what lawsuits". So I sent him a couple of links to the lawsuits. He then responded that he was going to follow up on this with this attorney and get back to me. I think everyone should email him and show support against what he is doing. Maybe we can stop him from driving the little guys out of business.
Ron

Denon 4520ci, 3 JBL 2360As/EV DHA-1s, 3 1/4 Pie bass bins, MiniDSP 2x4s, 4 Klipsch HIPs, 2 Klipsch KP3002s, PS3, XBox 360, 3 Intel NUCs, Monoprice Redmere, Monster HTPS7000, 2 SUPER SPUD subs, Panasonic AE8000u, 2 Danley DTS10 subs, & Yamaha P7000s.
ellisr63 is online now  
post #103 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 10:17 AM
Senior Member
 
PolkThug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kansas
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Most of what we are looking at are not actual "lawsuits", but lists of "filings", which still do cost these companies lots of money to hire lawyers to respond to them. Then, Monster follows with their lists of demands such as 1% of profits, control of the web sites, licensing fees etc. So at this point, they aren't actual "lawsuits" yet, more of a "strong-arming" than anything. So that's why Noel can respond with "what lawsuits?"

Regards,
PolkThug
PolkThug is offline  
post #104 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 10:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ellisr63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the Home Theater
Posts: 1,936
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 228
PolkThug,
I understand what you are saying. I will wait and see if Noel does indeed get back to me and what his response is. I hope that others are emailing him also about this "strong-arm" tactic. I don't like bullies and that is what Monster Cable is trying to be now. Leave them alone they are not infringing on the Monster Cable Trademark! No one is confusing their product with Monster Cable!
Ron

Denon 4520ci, 3 JBL 2360As/EV DHA-1s, 3 1/4 Pie bass bins, MiniDSP 2x4s, 4 Klipsch HIPs, 2 Klipsch KP3002s, PS3, XBox 360, 3 Intel NUCs, Monoprice Redmere, Monster HTPS7000, 2 SUPER SPUD subs, Panasonic AE8000u, 2 Danley DTS10 subs, & Yamaha P7000s.
ellisr63 is online now  
post #105 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 11:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
filecat13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,485
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally posted by Jake Sm


Absolutely right, I just feel that if you have the energy to whip this dog (Monster) rather than go after more egregious examples of "injustice" as you call it , then you are either being silly or you have a different agenda rather than that of "filecat defender of the little guy" ...."HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY!".....Boycotting THE NEAR SLAVE LABOR conditions of countries that many manufacturers use to build electronic equipment would
be , IMHO, amore just use of one's efforts and would bring to light a BIGGER problem than this....But if this is where your HATE and hence your focus is directed than I (now) UNDERSTAND... Monster's real problem is that they are operating a business in the way that our corrupt legal system allows and trying to make a profit...ALL cable companies make a profit (one would hope) and this is capitalism. The margins on these cables are, like all accessories , high and monster is just , by far , the most successful...don't HATE a company just because it's successful, it smacks of ENVY ....it also implies a certain dissatisfaction with capitalism..."Those who can - earn , those who can't - preach"
These are bitter and strident remarks. You really don't know what other social or moral causes I'm involved in, but you seem to judge that all I have time for is a pathetic protest against Monster. You'd be wrong. Plus, you're trying to misdirect the argument by changing it. It's not about slave labor, it's not about retail pricing, it's not about hate (a word you like to use, not me), and it's not about envy (another word you introduced), it's about strong arm actions taken by Monster against others.

Plus, you're still yelling. Calm down, be reasonable, step back and take a breath. Avoid making personal attacks and insults. I haven't called you "silly," or mocked you with titles, or cast you as filled with hate, or alleged that you are choked with envy, or described you with petty quotes. If you can't show repesct, at least show some class.

What I can afford, when I can afford it...
filecat13 is offline  
post #106 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 12:29 PM
Member
 
Macleod52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I wrote Noel, and here's how our correspondense went.

Me - First e-mail

Hello,

I would like to thank your for your unethical efforts to sue the pants off everyone and everything with the name “Monster†in it. You have shown me the light as to how your company works, and does business. I once bought your products thinking that I was getting a good deal, but I have found that your products are just as good as the stuff I can buy at RadioShack for 1/10 the price of your cables. You have now given me the chance to get the rest of what I paid for. Now I am effortlessly telling everyone I know to boycott your products, and I have just written an e-mail to the CEO of the company I work for asking them to stop doing business with you. What you have done is wrong, and is hurting yourself more than it is helping. I just thought I’d write you an e-mail to let you know that we (the audio/videophiles) hear your stance, and are doing something about it. Do not feel bad that your sales will decrease in the future. It is not because of MonsterVintage, or SnowMonsters, only a fool would be stupid enough to think that they were associated with you., no, it’s not because of these companies, it is because of your stupid lawsuits. People hear what is going on, and despite what you may think, people boycott for unethical business practice. So, hat’s off to you, I’m glad you’re digging yourself a grave.

Have a wonderful day. I hope you burn in hell. J


His (Her?) response

Thanks for your comments. You need to look closely as to what you are naming as lawsuits. These are trademarks applications by people want to file for a monster trademark, they are not lawsuits, and are not suing them. The trademark office will decide the status, not us. We have over 50 trademarks that the examiner has to look at to see if these businesses should get a mark. We are dropping the lawsuit on Monster Vintage because they stopped using our logo. There is no lawsuit against Snow Monsters.

Thanks again for your comments.

Wishing you a Monsterous New Year in 2005

My second response

So let me get this straight Monster Vintage took your logo off your website and used it? That’s pretty hard to believe. Perhaps they had something similar to yours, but I highly doubt any intelligent person would get confused. You have 50 trademarks, eh? In what? You guys make Home Theater components! What the **** does Pixar/Disney have to do with your precious audio/video components? What threat are Monster Garage and Monster House to you? Last time I checked they used Makita tools, and probably would laugh at the thought of using monster cables for any type of house wiring. You have 50 trademarks. Why? Do you plan to become the next Craftsman, or the next Pixar? Do you plan on creating your own TV show using Monster Cables to hang some drywall up or to paint the wall? I don’t get it. I can understand if someone is marketing a power strip, or a coax cable as “Monsterâ€, but these companies you are filing against have nothing to do, whatsoever, with anything your business does. Why indulge in these trademarks and sue everyone? I can understand if you want to venture out into other territories, but it’s first come first serve. Just because you have money doesn’t mean it’s okay to put a mom and pop’s store out of business because you decided after the fact to dive into that market. If they were in the market first and had the name, then it’s fair game. You snooze you loose, but unfortunately you have to be that bully that picks on everyone.

Again, good luck in the future. Word is spreading fast, and as they say 1 negative experience gets passed around to 10-12 friends. Keep that up and eventually you’re into the millions. J Have a nice day.

His (Her?) Response

It may be hard to believe, but it’s true. It was the exact logo, which they have since taken off.

We make a lot of things, and own long standing trademarks, many you many not know about. A list is below, and many of these marks have been over 10 years old. I don’t know what mom and pop store you are referring to, but if you give me the name, let me know. We are not out to stopping people from doing business, but we do need to enforce our marks, or we will lose them. Many overlaps can be solved through simple licensing arrangements. Also Disney and Monster did a huge joint promotion together on Monsters Inc. with a billboard in Times square when the movie came out, so there was not an issue there when we saw there was not a conflict as they were talking about furry creatures. We have been working together ever since.

I have confirmed the following for you.


The web site you gave me is indeed the notification of trademark FILINGS, not lawsuits. So if anyone is misrepresenting this to you, this is not right and should be corrected.
If you click on some of those trademark filings, you will see that many of these are merely 60 day extensions on their filings so we can look to see if there is any conflict with our channels. Most of these we don’t have a problem with.
Even if we do object to the filing, it is the trademark examiner that determines if the business filing for the mark is entitled, it, NOT US who makes this determination..
Our examination of businesses filing trademarks with our name Monster is normal processes for any business having a trademark, and even more so for us since we have 53 trademarks that have already been allowed and not contestable. I have listed them below.
The trademark law says that we are required to police our marks and enforce them or we will lose them, so it’s common to oppose new trademarks using the same name as you in the same product categories you are in.


Here are the Monster Trademarks, that are NOT only Monster Cable in the areas that we do business you may not know about.


Class 9 (e.g. 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 25 (e.g. clothing and apparel):

Tshirts, hats, and other forms of wearables.

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

Monster
Monster Attitude
I am a Monster
Monster Sport
Monster Design


Class 41 (e.g. training, entertainment & educational services):

In Class 41, we have the following registered and common-law trademarks:


Monster
Monster Wired
MRHTME
Monster Reference Home Theater Music Experience
M4


Class 16 (e.g. newsletters and printed publications):

In Class 16, we have the following registered trademarks:

Monster
Monster Wired

While I appreciate every individuals right to spread an opinion, it should be one that is informed, and based on all of the information, not partial information.



Monsterous thanks,

Noel
The Head Monster
Mobile Phone: 415/508-0000
Office: 415 840-2000
Macleod52 is offline  
post #107 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 12:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
Poncho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Haven't heard from any trademark experts in this discussion. I'm not one either, other than applying for several a year through my job. Trademark info is published on the uspto.gov website:

Facts:
There are 656 live tradmearks using the word Monster
The name "Monster Cable" has 6 trademarks
First use in commerce was in 1978.

They state in most of them:
NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "CABLE" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN

Classes of goods and description:
IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: entertainment equipment, namely, loudspeakers, loudspeaker mounts, and electrical cabling.
IC 009. US 026. G & S: COMPUTER CABLES
IC 009. US 021. G & S: ELECTRICAL SIGNAL TRANSMITTING CABLE AND CONNECTORS THEREFOR
IC 009. US 021 036. G & S: MUSICAL AND VOICE SIGNAL TRANSMITTING CABLE AND CONNECTORS THEREFOR
IC 009. US 021. G & S: Audio Cable
IC 006. US 002 012 013 014 023 025 050. G & S: Speaker Wire.

As far as I know, when you file a trademark, it is good for the types of products that you list in your application. If they think they can protect the Montser name for unrelated products, they are probably on shaky legal ground or smoking crack.
Poncho is offline  
post #108 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 01:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
Poncho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I did another search and found Monster Cable claims 241 trademarks including all the TV shows that use the name. It looks like they are trying to trademark every name there is at $335 per application. Probably chump change to them.
Poncho is offline  
post #109 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 01:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bpape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: St. Louis(Wildwood), MO
Posts: 7,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
No wonder it's overpriced ;)

Sounds like a 'monster' waste of money to me. Oops! Damn! Now I'm probably going to have to fight them to use that word in my posts ;)

You can say what you want about trademark protection - this is not it. I'm all for protecting trademarks and patents. However, this is nothing more than blackmail/extortion hiding behind legal wrangling to the desired end of additional income.

I am serious...and don't call me Shirley.
Bryan Pape - Lead Acoustician
GIK Acoustics

bpape is offline  
post #110 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 01:18 PM
Senior Member
 
PolkThug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kansas
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Macleod52
Many overlaps can be solved through simple licensing arrangements.
Such as $1000 a year and 1% of profits. ;)

Quote:

Also Disney and Monster did a huge joint promotion together on Monsters Inc. with a billboard in Times square when the movie came out, so there was not an issue there when we saw there was not a conflict as they were talking about furry creatures. We have been working together ever since.
Noel, don't you mean there wasn't a conflict after Disney challenged your very trademark over the word 'monster'? (If somebody here has a link to Disney's response, PLEASE post it, its a pdf file)

Quote:

so it’s common to oppose new trademarks using the same name as you in the same product categories you are in.
If that's true Noel, then why are you still strong-arming Snow Monsters????

www.stopthemonster.com
PolkThug is offline  
post #111 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 01:33 PM
Senior Member
 
PolkThug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kansas
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Found the pdf

Quote:
Also Disney and Monster did a huge joint promotion together on Monsters Inc. with a billboard in Times square when the movie came out, so there was not an issue there when we saw there was not a conflict as they were talking about furry creatures. We have been working together ever since.
So, did you sue Disney just for fun then??
http://www.madmartian.com/legal/disney_complaint.pdf

Monster Cables Inc vs. The Walt Disney Company
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT AND DILUTION

12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that from and after September 17, 2001, defendants and each of them have commenced use in commerce of a confusingly similar “Monsters, Inc.†and “monstersinc†marks...

*edit: nm
PolkThug is offline  
post #112 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 03:00 PM
Member
 
AustPwrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Interesting thread. Like a lot of you, I was pretty much irritated over reading about Monster filing suites against companies with or using "Monster" in their names and titles. Not being an attorney, I did the next best thing and sought counsel on this matter. Asking a good friend of mine who is a senior associate patent litigator (his terms, not mine) in a large corporate firm. His response was

"....but you want to have senior rights to the mark. So it does make sense to file applications over potential uses. But if I recall correctly, rights to the mark also expire with non-use, and I believe that, in a priority dispute, actual use of the mark is a factor. So it can be a very expensive (and futile) proposition to file applications for marks over multiple fields of use, if you never intend to sell products within those fields of use. (When you take trademark law, there are lots of decision trees that explain to you what the outcome should be.)"

He also indicated that if you don't use a mark within a certain time period, they will expire. Again, he is a patent lawyer, and not an expert in trademark.

Given what he has said, I assume that Monster has legitimate cases since they have filed trademarks in so many fields. However, since they don't have products in may of those fields yet, I'm not sure what the chances that they will win in that type of suite. However, if you don't have the deep pockets to fight them, ie Monster Vintage, then you can be "strong-armed" into settling. Which does seem to be their tactic. Would be interesting to find out what the results are/were of their suite with Disney. As many pointed out, Disney is one company that can fight them to the bitter end, and likely win. My guess is that they bit off more than they can chew with Disney and settled/dropped/settling/dropping the case.

Seems like greed pervades all.

Side note, not sure why Jake is so belligerent and condescending in his posts. Even if he doesn't have anything to hide, or have an ulterior motive, he sure gives everyone else a perception that he does. And perception can sometimes be more powerful than reality (IMHO).
AustPwrs is offline  
post #113 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 04:27 PM
 
fredanderson21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
These are bitter and strident remarks. You really don't know what other social or moral causes I'm involved in, but you seem to judge that all I have time for is a pathetic protest against Monster. You'd be wrong. Plus, you're trying to misdirect the argument by changing it. It's not about slave labor, it's not about retail pricing, it's not about hate (a word you like to use, not me), and it's not about envy (another word you introduced), it's about strong arm actions taken by Monster against others.

Plus, you're still yelling. Calm down, be reasonable, step back and take a breath. Avoid making personal attacks and insults. I haven't called you "silly," or mocked you with titles, or cast you as filled with hate, or alleged that you are choked with envy, or described you with petty quotes. If you can't show repesct, at least show some class.
and....

Quote:
Side note, not sure why Jake is so belligerent and condescending in his posts. Even if he doesn't have anything to hide, or have an ulterior motive, he sure gives everyone else a perception that he does. And perception can sometimes be more powerful than reality (IMHO).


Seems like we need another thread to boycott Jake!

;)
fredanderson21 is offline  
post #114 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 04:55 PM
Senior Member
 
hmronin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Jake Sm

Quote:
Absolutely right, I just feel that if you have the energy to whip this dog (Monster) rather than go after more egregious examples of "injustice" as you call it , then you are either being silly or you have a different agenda rather than that of "filecat defender of the little guy" ...."HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY!".....Boycotting THE NEAR SLAVE LABOR conditions of countries that many manufacturers use to build electronic equipment would
We all have the freedom to choose what battles we think we can make a difference in. If I took your reasoning to its logical conclusion, we should all be selling our HT gear and finding a small country to feed...(not a bad idea actually...:) ). But the fact remains, it is a personal choice, not a right or wrong.

Bear in mind, I'm not totally convinced about a boycott of Monster products, in part because I do not have the full details of the cases involved (although a lot of good info is being presented in this thread...), and partly because I prefer to make judgements of a company based on the quality of the products they produce and the prices they ask for them. On this level, my experiences with Monster cable vs. competitors is that they are a poor value. So technically, you could say I boycott their products because I have so far been able to find competing ones that cost less, and provided equal or better performance.

However, being a nasty 800 pound gorilla of a competitor doesn't rub me the right way either...

Quote:
Monster's real problem is that they are operating a business in the way that our corrupt legal system allows and trying to make a profit...
The legal system is neither corrupt nor incorruptable. It is a system, which can be used ethically, or unethically to acheive legal goals. If you feel there is corruption in this case with Monster's legal actions, it is because Monster is choosing to take advantage of the system to acheive legal goals through unethical means...it is Monster that is the cause of the corruption, NOT the legal system. (Remember the blindfolded lady with the scales?)

I agree that changing the laws to eliminate the loopholes that companies like Monster use for their advantage is an effective solution. But that does not minimize the fact that companies DO commit unethical, albiet legal actions to acheive their goals, and its perfectly legitimate for them to be held in the court of PUBLIC OPINION, as well as a court of law. Sometimes, the court of public opinion can be more damaging than the latter...
Quote:
don't HATE a company just because it's successful, it smacks of ENVY ....it also implies a certain dissatisfaction with capitalism..."Those who can - earn , those who can't - preach"
Sounds a little preachy to me.....;)

Many a man curses the rain that falls upon his head, and knows not that it brings abundance to drive away hunger. Saint Basil
hmronin is offline  
post #115 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 05:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
oldschool4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by SVonhof
Does anyone know any mucky-mucks at the places that sell Monster Cables such as Best Buy, Curcuit City or Good Guys? Maybe we could somehow convince the upper management level of those retail places that it would be in their best interest not to sell the cables?

That is one thing that could put a Monster Hurt on Monster Cable. For one of their bread-and-butter sales places to stop selling their stuff. THAT would be a statement.
x 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink
Mr. Cialella is, without question, the AVS honorary MOST ADMIRED PERSON OF THE YEAR.:D
oldschool4life is offline  
post #116 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 08:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jake Sm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: american heartland
Posts: 3,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
SHAME ON YOU, SONY (Senate - March 22, 1991)


[Page: S4092]
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the Senate floor to tell you and my colleagues about a drama that has unfolded in Baltimore, come to a head in Baltimore, and it tells the story of how a big, foreign-owned corporation has set about wrecking the American dream of a small woman entrepreneur. The story is a simple one.

A woman comes to this country from the Philippines and her first name is Sony. Her last name is Florendo. She goes about working hard to save a few pennies to open a small downtown restaurant in Baltimore. Through her own great recipies and sweat equity, she builds a business, and she calls it Sony's.

In comes Sony Electronics and tells her she cannot do business using their name. They then proceed to take her into court, threaten her with all kinds of lawsuits, and finally the other day they won. And Sony Florendo's restaurant is no longer in Baltimore now. It is S. Florendo.

Well, you know, I just do not think that is right. I do not think megacorporations with megabucks ought to crush a small entrepreneur who in no way jeopardizes their operation nor, by the very nature of the products they sell, poach on that reputation.

This woman's business sold delightful Asian food. It did not sell TV's; it did not sell radios. And it in no way was poaching on the reputation of Sony electronic products.

Well, Mrs. Florendo has no legal remedies anymore. The law just was not on her side. But I will tell you, this Senator is on her side. I have just written to Sony Corp., and I want to tell you what I said:


[Page: S4093]
Dear Mr. Morita: Shame on you, Sony.

Shame on you for forcing Mrs. Resurrecion `Sony' Robles-Florendo to remove her name from her restaurants in my hometown of Baltimore, Maryland, I want you to voluntarily and immediately reconsider this decision.

Your company won't let Mrs. Sony Florendo use her own good name to sell her own good food in her own country that allows you to trade freely even as you treat her unfairly.

I've known Sony Florendo for years. I can't understand how this woman is a threat to Sony Corporation. She is a fine and decent woman who serves delicious food at a small downtown restaurant at Harborplace and at a suburban mall--I've been there and eaten there. She sells food, not electronics or anything that competes with your company.

Sony Corporation has billions of dollars. Why are you bullying her?

You brought a $3 million trademark lawsuit against Mrs. Florendo in 1984. You knew she couldn't afford to take on your high priced lawyers. But she tried to work with you. She even changed her restaurants' name from `Sony's' to `Sony Florendo's.' Even that wasn't good enough.

Do you think Phillips Petroleum should follow your lead and sue Phillip's Crab House? Does Scott Paper Company have to sue Scott's Hobby and Crafts Shop?

Sony Corporation may have the law on its side. But you do not have common sense or even common decency on your side. I can't believe that Sony can sign a $1 billion contract with Michael Jackson and still feel your corporation is threatened by having a couple of `Sony Florendo's' restaurants in Baltimore.

You should voluntarily reconsider this harassing, humiliating and heavy handed decision. Let Sony Florendo use her good name. Then you might restore your own good name as well.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Mr. President, Sony Corp. won the legal battle with Mrs. Florendo, but guess what, her restaurants are open today. Her good spirit is there. She loves this country. She loves this country, and she earns a living, and she puts people to work.

Though Sony Corp. might have won the lawsuit, Mrs. Florendo wins the battle. She is about hard work, sweat equity. She had to change the restaurant's name, but if you talk to her, she is ready to go; she is not going to be stopped.

I regretted that I had to do this, and most of all, I regretted that while this woman was trying to earn a living,

establish her own reputation, and care for her family, she had to go through all of this for the past several years.

Mr. President, I hope that the high-priced lobbyists out there for Sony Corp. have heard my words, and I think I speak for all of Maryland and all of America.

Sony Florendo has Barbara Mikulski, and I believe the U.S. Senate, on her side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Baltimore Sun be printed in the Record at this point.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:


From the Baltimore Sun, March 19, 1991

[FROM THE BALTIMORE SUN, MARCH 19, 1991]

Electronics Giant Finally Beats a Woman Named Sony

Seeking a speaker recomendation? Compare for yourself or be swayed by others who hear differantly, or by marketing, or just save time and get the cheapest , nicest looking, or smallest.
Jake Sm is offline  
post #117 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 09:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Grooms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Villages, Fl
Posts: 2,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 164
ohh the shame, BOYCOTT SONY

Hear me now, Listen to me later....
Tom Grooms is offline  
post #118 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 09:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jake Sm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: american heartland
Posts: 3,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I will start out by saying that I do not have much concern for Monster's profitability, but I find that it is usefull to many OTHER companies in my business...you don't have to believe me when I tell you that I don't often sell any monster cable (mit and tributaries are the brands I mostly use) but Monster is often requested AS is Bose , which I don't even carry at all...as some have correctly pointed out, I am often critical of Bose (I actually worked for them @ 14 years ago) and I see a distinction in my feelings of the two companies.....first, I do NOT, personally, believe that monster is a good value, but I also do not believe it is CRAP. Overpriced (an opinion made with my wallet) yes, but it does it's job...what's more, as I am one of those people who believes in the law of diminishing returns, I believe that going up a couple of notches on the quality levels of cables is GOOD, I also believe that going beyond is a waste...on this , with regards to cable, there are many disputes here on this forum even when no manufacturers names are used....
As for Bose, I see a product (in the satelittes) that do not deliver on a promise of quality regardless of price, they are bad...now I, again, know that this is my opinion, but while most of us would refuse to settle for Bose even if it cost us NOTHING, I would submit that Monster given to us for free would not make our system sound or look BAD. So , my distinction is that while Monster is a poor value Bose is just poor in performance ....

As for what I have been reading on line (not just here) and through some brief research, Monster is doing the prerequisite filings that it is supposed to do to maintain their rights to the trademark....I have seen them trying to get people to stop using their logo...seen their lawyers taking their time looking over others who are filing for trademarks that may be similar to the one's that they have payed for and must use or loose... This WOULD BE somewhat reminiscent of the people who bought up all the good website names so they could sell them later, EXCEPT, as has been noted by another posters lawyer friend as well as some I know in the same field, Monster must be actively doing some buisness using those trademarks or they can't hold them, not something they'd likely do for no reason.

As for pursuing the causes you think are worth pursueing, you are right , direct your energies at whichever injustices bother you most.....
I am more bothered by Tara Labs "mis-labeling" cable as made in the USA, WHEN IT WAS NOT, but that didn't get many people here up off their chair for very long.
As for yelling, I use caps for emphasis , but I will start using Italics more, it's just that my typing sucks (and my spelling too), just ask JIMroberts100 :)

Seeking a speaker recomendation? Compare for yourself or be swayed by others who hear differantly, or by marketing, or just save time and get the cheapest , nicest looking, or smallest.
Jake Sm is offline  
post #119 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 09:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ellisr63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the Home Theater
Posts: 1,936
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 228
What does a restaurant selling Monster Shrimp have to do with Monster Cables Trademark? How about Disneys' "Monsters Inc"? If there was another cable manufacturer or electronics manufacturer that made products for audio or video I would agree, but they are going after everyone!
Ron

Denon 4520ci, 3 JBL 2360As/EV DHA-1s, 3 1/4 Pie bass bins, MiniDSP 2x4s, 4 Klipsch HIPs, 2 Klipsch KP3002s, PS3, XBox 360, 3 Intel NUCs, Monoprice Redmere, Monster HTPS7000, 2 SUPER SPUD subs, Panasonic AE8000u, 2 Danley DTS10 subs, & Yamaha P7000s.
ellisr63 is online now  
post #120 of 515 Old 01-04-2005, 09:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jake Sm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: american heartland
Posts: 3,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Ron, look at the specifics...they are filings and considerations that the legal team is responsible for looking after, many times nothing has come of them, other times they have been solved quickly and other times companies had copied the logo design...I have seen and worn "Monster apparel" , nice shirts, hats and jackets..."Monster tips" and "Monster locks" refer to the ends on the cables and, I had heard that Monster knew of and allowed a "lock" company with a completely different logo to continue to use the name.....the rest of the trademarks are somewhat obvious to the people in the industry, and products support these trademarks.....there are probably some callous attorneys involved in the initial filings , but I have seen (see above) more egregious examples of corporate strong-arming.

Seeking a speaker recomendation? Compare for yourself or be swayed by others who hear differantly, or by marketing, or just save time and get the cheapest , nicest looking, or smallest.
Jake Sm is offline  
Closed Thread Speakers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off