In Reply to: How about "Apple", "Virgin", and "Windows"? [nt] posted by David Spear on October 14, 2004 at 18:31:32:
my point was that, what right does a company have to claim a word when it is standard dictionary word?
The point of trademark is that it recognisable, not only by the word itself, but the way in which that word is displayed. i.e company logo's choice of font, colour, size etc.What is the final conclusion of how these ludicrous lawsuits will end? Are we going to have to pay royalties whenever we utter the sacred word "Monster" in public, or type it in a post to a forum?
Personally, I think these companies and/or their lawyers should just wind their necks in and "get a life"
The company in question (monstervintage) is obviously not in direct competition with monster cables, neither was Monster.com.
Does monster cables believe that, when someone goes to monstervintage.com instead of monstercables.com, the person in question may buy a used pair of flares rather than a new set of cables for their audio system?
My understanding is that, in the market, many people believe that Monster Cables are the "ultimate" in audio cables? If that perception is already out there, then why do they feel threatened by a second hand clothing store's website? If that is the case, then the company obviously feels pretty insecureThis smacks of nothing more than blind greed.
Sorry if this is seen as argumentative, but this kind of corporate bullying really gives me the shits! Whether it be monster, apple or whoever. They are sueing over the use of an english word, not a Logo or unique identifier of their company, that has been manipulated/abused for the gain of another company.
Smoke me a kipper...I'll be Back for Breakfast.
Cheers
welly
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: How about "Apple", "Virgin", and "Windows"? [nt] - welly 20:46:32 10/14/04 (0)