Home General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

Re: a few comments on the details

Hi Bruce,

Thank you very much for your very helpful observations and comments. I'm taking the liberty to paste >>your post<< with my response.

>>1. The dismissal of a lawsuit by the plaintiff (or even a dismissal by the court for lack of personal jurisdiction, or improper venue) does not automatically release the defendant from all claims. That usually has to be done by a separate agreement. So, the claims are still out there, to the extent that Monster Cable wants to assert them.<<

My gut feeling was nearly in sync, I knew that Monster Cable could, depending on the withdrawal details, re-assert claims. I just didn't realize that the claims were left just "hanging" out there.

>>2. Without knowing in detail the nature of MC's claim against MV, MC's willingness to license MV to use its logo is not necessarily inconsistent with that. If MC is claiming to be a "famous brand" (like, e.g. Coca-Cola), permissive licensing is consistent, not inconsistent, with that.<<

This was generally my understanding also. I'll get the MC v MV documents scanned and posted as PDF's by the end of the week. However what Monster Cable was demanding seemed IMHO to be very much overboard. Famous Trademark claims by MC are, IMHO, far from justified. I have done some reading and been asking some questions. Supermark, Famousmark, Trademark differences are pretty well explained. My sense is that the "famous mark" bar is raised VERY (near impossibly) high to assert as Famous a single word that has universal previous historical usage. The word "monster" fits that bill to a T. Monster Cable would be smart to think up a cool new "unique" name, that way they could have an automatic presumed Famous Mark. (I think everyone would let Noel continue to be the "Head Monster") Trademark history is overflowing with examples of a company growing big with a common name and then changing it, for that very reason.

>>3. Generally speaking, it is unethical for a lawyer to contact an adverse party directly who is represented by legal counsel. The rules regarding in-house counsel are more variable from state to state, so it's hard to be sure that Tognotti's call was improper. Of course, if MV terminated its relationship with the lawyer who had represented it in court, then there's nothing improper about a direct contact with MV from any lawyer representing MC, in-house or otherwise.<<

I wasn't sure either, that's why I stated it as "wondering" if the contact was OK. Certainly the phone call IMO was ill-advised given the amount of rancor. As Victor was telling me about the call I asked him if Dave had asked, at the start of the call, if MV did have an attorney. Victor said no, the question was not asked.

>>4. It does seem that the sane way to resolve this (if that's what everyone really wants) is to follow the path you've started -- a new logo for MV, and maybe a release (not a license) from MC for that logo? Getting pissed off when you're in a legal wrangle always benefits one party -- the lawyers. So, you're to be commended for counseling everyone to keep a cool head, Ray.<<

Bruce, thanks for the kind words. I will try and talk to MV in a couple of days after they have cooled off.

I am unhappy about many Monster Cable tactics, as they bring down the "shine" on the industry. But, I am just as willing to defend them too. I have never been one to "throw the baby out with the bath water".

Ray



This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Parts Connexion  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
  • Re: a few comments on the details - Ray Kimber 14:16:22 02/14/05 (0)


You can not post to an archived thread.