|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: Monster Cable v Monster Vintage, I tried to make some back-channel peace posted by Ray Kimber on February 12, 2005 at 09:05:53:
Ray Kimber,I didn't have knowledge of Monster Cable's pursuit of Monster Vintage until your post here, but I have followed the discussion of Monster Cable's apparently constant effort to surpress anyone using the word "Monster" for practically any other use- no matter how unrelated. I'm surprised they haven't stopped the use of "Monster Truck" for those 2000HP Tonka toys.
On one hand, it seems that modern trademark law almost requires the kinds of actions MC undertakes. It's an all-or-nothing course. It's a matter of logic- if you allow even one other use, this is an abdication of the concept of exclusivity.
I believe that companies should have proper control of brand names, trdemarks, and logos, but in former days there were restrictions on use. These restrictions would be that a name or some part of a name could be used if the use was obviously in a completely different realm and for a different reason. If you marketed "Cadillac Face Powder: It fills your pores with Pure Lava Goodness, a quality product of Cadillac, Michigan", you could not be sued by "Cadillac Automobiles: The Standard of the World". This is because the word "Cadillac" was the city of manufacture and a reasonable person would not think the face powder was made by GM and there is no benefit to the face powder from the advertising of the cars. This is a pretty dark grey area as you would have to demonstrate the unrelatedness. Ther would be many people who would still have an association of Cadillac car quality to the face powder. On the other hand, "Rolls-Royce Suppositories: the Best Hemorroid Treatment in the World", Royce Royce LTD. could pursue them because the two words "Rolls" and "Royce" have no other meaning to a reasonable person than the car and "The Best.. in the World" is also an obvious attempt at association.
Also, you were not protected to the same degree if you registered names in anticipation of a company wanting to use thayt name. This came up when Mobil Oil was required, I thnk be anti-trust rulings for Standard Oil to split off part of it's business to become "Exxon". This was around 1971-2. Someone had a clue of this strange name and registered "Exon" and probably others similar to try and coerce some kind of payment. They did own that name, but becuase they never intended to go into the oil business and the registration was only to extort (I use this term casually) from Mobil, so "Mr Exon" fellow lost. So, there was a part of trademark law that took intention of use into consideration. And I think that's significant.
In the case of Monster Cable, they registered a large number- even dozens of names that don't relate in any way to the production of mediocre mass-marketed cables- and these registrations give them like Mr Exon, the exclusive right to be "Monster Diaper Service" and all the others. But, in my view, this exclusive right should not hold if there was never an intention to create th diaper service- just as Mr. Exon could be seen not to be starting an oil company. The trick of course would be proving the intention of registration was only to corner absoltely any use of a term and that must be difficult.
The other issue is the registration of a term in previous common use. The word "Monster" was not invented by MC just as "Cadillac" was an an Indian tribe and later a grey city in Michigan and not coined by General Motors. I read a few months ago that Trump was trying to copyrigth the phrase "You're fired" and asumed this was a joke, but then so is Trump generally and it was true. Trump should be able trademark soething like "Trumphair" because anyone would know immediately what that means, but not two words in common usage since Chaucer.
The numerous grey areas of trademark laws are beyond my meager knowledge. but there needs to be a realm of reasonable use. MC has the right, and to some degree the necessity to pursue what they regard as infringements, but because of their extensive regstrations of names and tradmarks unrelated to the business that an ordinary consumer associates with them, their protection should be limited.
Is ee their practice of pursuing compnies in unrelated businesses using the generic word "monster" as predatory and destrcutive of business confidence and I think in such vehement terms and to such extent will gradually have the opposite effect of protection adn in fact, produce an association of "monster" with, well -monster".
Sorry to ramble on, but I feel strongly on this issue. A few months ago, I was designing facilities for one of the largest stuff-animal company in the US and the owner committed suicide, partly as the result of his depression over successful multi-million dollar lawsuits by a huge corporation for copyright and licensing infringement of trademarked characters. I don't know the details, he may have been making Bears that were too close to some version of W. the P., but this fellow is dead- and to some degree over tradmarks and copyrights.
It's so damn complicated! I suppose the real problem in trademark law is that it seems to hinge on their being "reasonable" people about to judge if a possible infringement is banking off a name by association. And in the hyper-commerical world- how many reasonable people are left?
Cheers,
Bambi B
- Disclaimer: No association with "Bambi", a registered trademark and copyrighted term of the Walt Disney Company is intended or implied and there is no explicit or implied representation of this person as a 2-dimensional, ficticious deer.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Monster Cable - Bambi B 08:46:57 02/13/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
