|
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 Wrongfully Accused - A Note From Noel posted by Monster Cable on January 6, 2005 at 23:55:20:
Mr. Lee,I read through your entire note, in most part due to the thought that there are usually two sides to a story. I admit to a heavy bias against Monster Cable right now, because the majority of news and industry reports, stories from individuals directly involved with trademark infringement activity from your company, and overall commentary through the various Internet music and audio communities all paint a consistent picture of Monster Cable being the sole force behind legal threat and/or lawsuit.
I'll be the first to admit to not having a legal background, so this requires me to rely on what is reported. In reading numerous newsprint articles (from reliable sources, such as the Denver Post , the San Francisco Chronicle, US Patent Office, etc.), it appears that Monster Cable Products, Inc. (a California corporation) and Monster Cable International, Ltd. (a Bermuda corporation) have engaged in this sort of legal activity:
1) Lawsuits that have been settled, such as against the Discovery Channel, Monster.com, and others.
2) Presented numerous companies, both large and small, legal documents or letters from your legal representation, that require these companies, at their cost, to engage legal representation of their own.
3) Presented licensing demands and other business demands revolving around YOUR licensing agreement to numerous large and small companies (including Snow Monsters)
Can you respond to the presentation of what appears to be documents presented to Snow Monster via actions initiated by Monster Cable. I refer to this link: http://www.snowmonsters.com/MonsterCable/truelies.html
I am fairly sure that anyone that receives a letter from your legal representation needs to retain legal services of their own to respond, and possibly handle further legal action taken on behalf of Monster Cable. Is it fair to say that these companies incur a cost directly related to your action? It's my belief that they do, and as such, here is where we differ on the definition of "frivolous lawsuit".
In my eyes, Monster Cable Products represents a brand that is directly related to cables and interconnection devices in the audio-visual and music production marketplace. I believe that is a fair assessment of the majority of buyers and sellers in the marketplace. For example, if I go to Best Buy and ask for their recommendation on cables, I'm not surprised if Monster Cable is recommended.
However, if I ask a salesperson at Best Buy where I'd find the video "Monsters, Inc.", I know they wouldn't tell me to look in the cable aisle. If I ask them "Does Monster Cable put that movie out?", they'd no doubt look puzzled, and most likely say no. If I found the store manager and ask them if they had seen a drop in Monster Cable sales since the release of the movie "Monsters, Inc.", I'd be astounded if they could produce any sort of sales data that could correlate these two products having an effect (either positive or negative) on each other.
So, Mr. Lee, when you mentioned "frivolous lawsuit", here lies the difference in our opinion. I see your trademarks related to cables and interconnection devices as a success, they clearly represent a certain type of cable in my mind, and I understand your desire to protect a set of trademarks related to cables and interconnection devices.
I do not begin to understand how companies like Snow Monsters, or the Discovery Channel (Monster Garage), Disney/Pixar (Monster, Inc.), or MonsterVintage.com (retro clothing) either relate to, or dilute, your Monster Cable trademarks. Truly, I don't believe the great majority of consumers do either. And yet, all of these companies have either been engaged in a lawsuit or legal proceedings with your company. All, strictly due to your actions, have incurred legal costs.
If you can explain how any of these companies causes harm to your company, loss of revenue, or distortion of your trademarks, I'll listen. Your actions, and your actions alone, cause these companies financial distress. So, help me to understand how your actions create a beneficial situation for anyone.
I'm not looking for a recitation of trademark law, just a common sense explanation of why Monster Cable Products, Inc. wishes to impose licensing restrictions on small companies, such as Snow Monster and MonsterVintage.com. Is there sales data, or consumer research, that supports your view?
I'd really like to know. Thus far, as I try and relate all of these various "Monster" related enterprises, the only trademark dilution I see taking place is solely via your Monster Cable Products actions, and the end result is that I don't want to buy your products, since I feel that this ends up funding what I view as both "frivolous lawsuits" and unnecessary legal action.
Tom
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Response to Noel Lee - tommy2000 09:07:44 01/07/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
