In Reply to: What did you expect, Ray? They thought that the dust had settled and that everyone here was tired of the topic. posted by Jack Seaton on February 13, 2005 at 14:44:03:
Hi Jack,This is my understanding of the MC v MV logocentric chess moves, ala synopsis:
Monster Cable objects to the logo
Monster Vintage offers to change the logo
Monster Cable demands name and logo (and more!)
Monster Vintage says no
Monster Cable sues, the logo is part of the claims
Monster Vintage wins change of venue
Monster Cable withdraws suit, w/all claims and objections, including the logo
(MV does at some point in the middle of this scenario change the logo, but not due to any order or agreement)
I then see the logo and agree with Monster Cable's heartburn regarding the logo, and even though Monster Cable has withdrawn the suit and Monster Vintage might be in the clear to use it I try to get it changed. I think it is the right thing to do, IMHO Monster Cable had fair right and a good reason to protest the logo.
Here is a key point! Seems that Monster Cable would have let Monster Vintage keep the logo, if they would have agreed to be under the Monster thumb. That seems to make the objection to dilution, tarnishment and confusion a question of prior insincerity on the part of MC.
I am still wondering if the recent phone call from Dave Tognotti to Monster Vintage was ex parte contact?
Ray
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: What did you expect, Ray? They thought that the dust had settled and that everyone here was tired of the topic. - Ray Kimber 07:47:19 02/14/05 (4)
- About that insincerity: a hypocritical quote from Noel Lee in an interview - Todd B. 22:48:49 02/14/05 (1)
- This just keeps getting better and better .. - Jack Seaton 06:33:38 02/15/05 (0)
- a few comments on the details - Bruce from DC 13:22:58 02/14/05 (1)
- Re: a few comments on the details - Ray Kimber 14:16:22 02/14/05 (0)