Another bogus Trademark dispute: Monster Cable

Sickening. Just sickening. Now I'm even happier that a while ago, Rob recommended Dayton Audio at partsexpress.com

Their cables are very nice quality, and I have no doubt in my mind that they are a better value. I recently wired a whole system with Dayton Audio cables, from speakers to video to optical audio, and every cable was superb. Their speaker cables are gorgeous, and a steal when compared to other cables of similar substantiality.

Goddamn Martians!

My suggestion is to proxy your comments through a more powerful voice. One Monster Cable will hear loud and clear.

As a consumer wanting to be heard I'd write to Best Buy Inc. letting them know that one of their vendors is engaging in harrassment and that you are boycotting that companies products. Further, that by carrying their products you feel Best Buy is contributing to these actions and that you no longer feel comfortable patronizing their stores and feel obligated to tell others to shop elsewhere as well. Provide some links/contacts to competing companies that Best Buy can stock instead and suggest they should immediately pull Monster Cable products from all their locations.

If Best Buy says "boo" about this, you'd better believe Monster would listen. I'd be surprised if BB didn't account for a disproportionate amount of Monster's revenue.

Bruno

That's just what I was thinking, but it's discouraging because BB seems even less likely to listen to complaints than Monster does.

Oh well, regardless, I think I'm going to reformat your post, if you don't mind, and send it to every address at BB I can find, from every address I have available.

*edit*
In regards to your post, does anyone have links to better products? Here's the one I can contribute:
Dayton Audio

I just bought another $100 of merchandise from them, and got three 10' speaker cables (for left, right, center speakers), two 6' optical audio cables, and two 6' S-Video cables. That kind of money would probably barely cover one speaker cable of the same type from Monster.

Just in case I'm not the only one who's been upgrading to higher quality instrument cables, my friend who owns a studio recommended Mogami as an alternative to Monster. He says they're better anyway and cheaper.

According to this article, Monster.com already had a link to Monster Cable before the attack. Regardless, Monster Cable had to be unreasonable, and the two companies settled.

*edit*
sorry, it wasn't that article, but I did read it somewhere.

Monster.com, the job site is a web site owned by Monster Worldwide, Inc. Who also own or operate Monster, Inc. and Monster Technologies, LLC.

Monstercable.com and the Monster Cable products are owned by the company Monster Cable Products Inc.

Both corporations have trademarks for their respective "Monster" logotypes. Neither of them own the "word" "Monster"

I could trademark a "Monster" logotype tomorrow for something else with a different design if I wanted to. It would give me no more claim over "Snow Monsters" as either of the above two companies have now.

Bruno

I don't even see how they have any legal leverage. makes me sick to my freaking stomach to see this kind of barratry go on all the time.

it's a sad, sad day when the maker of overpriced, crappy cables can throw their weight around and no corp. has the balls to stand up...

Besides, their products are generally crap. I'll probably get sued now, once they find this message! they're probably like that, too

HOO damn that's funny. Where did I put my screen wipes?

-Zeke

January 5, 2005




Noel Lee, President
Monster Cable
455 Valley Drive
Brisbane, CA 94005



Dear Mr. Lee:


I am sure you are by now aware of the unethical practices employed by Monster Cable in the "protection" of its trademark. I want you to know that these practices have consequences that will have an adverse effect on your company.

I am a "high end" IASCA competitor, quite successful at it and respected in the stereo community. I can tell you that when I recommend to people that they avoid your products because of your unethical practices, they will listen to me.

I represent the largest-volume stereo shop in interior Alaska in these competitions, and when the owner returns from the CES show in Las Vegas next week, I can tell you that in all likelihood after I speak with him he will cease carrying your products and will spread the word to other shops in the area. He is a self-admitted gun-loving red-necked first-amendment protection type of person and will not countenance your ill-advised behavior.

I realize that you probably sell more Monster Cables in a single day in Los Angeles than in an entire year in Alaska, so my threat to ostracize your products isn't going to cause you to lose too much sleep. But be aware that the "Boycott Monster" movement is growing on the internet and may yet have results beyond your most pessimistic expectations.

You know the expression, "As you sow..."

Be prepared to reap the whirlwind.


Sincerely,




Douglas Burnside

Excellent letter. Regardless of how much impact it has, it's more than most other people can do. I've sent emails to BB, CC, and Crutchfield, but I highly doubt they will listen.

I also sent a more polite email to Partsexpress.com, because I like their store and could not do without it as they are the only people I'm aware of who sell Dayton Audio products. They did respond to me, in a very polite and honest manner, and basically said that as a small store they can't afford to lose their Monster-buying customers. They said that they have been keeping track of the issue, and that they are waiting for:
a) the larger media to pick up on it (they then linked me the inital article linked in this thread)
and b) for the undergroung movement to grow to a significant size.

So while they carry Monster, the fact that there's an alternative to the low end line of Monster stuff is encouraging.

A while ago I was also told about Kimber Kable. Supposedly it's very, very good. Far better than Monster. I don't have that kind of cash to spend on cables, though

Last time I went cable shopping at Best Buy (needed a new optical cable), I could hardly find any Monster Cables. Seems at least the stores near here have mostly Acoustic Research cables now.

Too late, Jeff, as it's rumored that 1% of all Monster.com net profit goes directly to Monster Freakin' Cable for the use of that word/domain!

Official reply from the president of Monster Cable here.

It was actually sent to me by the guy I was talking with at Partsexpress. He seemed skeptical about the message

Interestingly, this page is now has a "check back soon" message.

Official reply from the president of Monster Cable here.


Well, what did we expect him to say?

I will withhold judgment pending revised information from Snow Monster's website. Their original claims against Monster sounded plausible...

tanstaafl.

I agree. The response is such an advertisement. He spends the first half of the response repeatedly saying "we're not suing anybody, look how much we like children and how great it is that I'm an entrepreneur." Yeah, it's great that he's done all this from nothing. That doesn't mean I'm convinced by his line. I think he's taking a page from the current book of spin by simply saying stuff and hoping people accept it as true. All I know is that he's a little less convincing than the sources that we've been seeing here.

from my understanding, trademark law says you must actively protect your marks. It doesn't give them carte blanche to issue blanket legal threats to anyone using a single word from the mark in most cases. Especially when the mark contains words as generic as 'Monster'.

If someone was marketing "Monster Wires", I could understand that. This prick is putting a spin on all of this to make it sound like it's legal behavior. It isn't..

He also says that they weren't going to sue Snow Monsters, oh ok. They were however trying to get them to sign a document handing off the rights to the Snow Monsters name, and had the audacity to state in that document that there would be licensing fees that Snow Monsters would have to pay to them to use the name. Nice. Real nice.

Looks like most of it was just not true... Snow Monsters retracts their earlier lawsuit against Monster Cable.

The untruth they're talking about was the product of some online discussions on other BBSes. The original letter posted by Snow Monsters didn't claim anything false, it just explained how Monster Cable Products had issued them a threat and their legal staff had attempted to bully them.

This is classic misdirection, as the issue at hand here isn't so much the filing of a lawsuit as it is the threat of doing so. Monster Cable has indeed had contact with a number of the companies it has asked the USPTO to "hold" on. Such news have been published by numerous sources.

I agree with protecting one's trade and service marks. But it's not worth damaging the reputation of your company by doing so in an almost frivolous manner. Attacking companies so far removed from the industry with such unrelated marks that no one would ever confuse products or services and which would certainly not dilute the good will nor "brand" of the supposed "established" marks. These games have hurt the Monster Brand in my eyes - and in the eyes of many other consumers. Brand is strictly in the eye of the beholder, and fr a company like Monster, it accounts for a large part of their equity. Dangerous games to be playing.

Bruno

Begs the question of whether the whole thing was a ploy by the small Durango company to piggyback on Monster Cable's growing, NEGATIVE 'net image/PR, doesn't it?