Just in case you didn't know, Hansen Natural, makers of Monster Energy, owns all the rights to the letters "M O N S T E R" when they're in that order. Or at least Hansen's lawyers think the company does, because it's going after a Vermont brewery for calling a beer "Vermonster."
If the suit were based on violating on rule 19, article 7 of the Bad Pun Act it would have merit, but nah, Hansen thinks the name will confuse consumers who think they're ordering a Monster Energy drink.
A story from the Vermont publication Seven Days interviewed Matt Nadeau, owner of Rock Art Brewery, the lawsuit's target:
“
Nadeau, who holds the "Vermonster" trade name in Vermont, thinks the letter was probably triggered by his application to trademark it nationally. "I don't get those people out there in California," he says. Given that Nadeau sells about 95 percent of his beer "within 50 miles of Morrisville," the feisty brewer says he fails to see how giving a single product a name that's a play on its home state could damage a massive corporation making a completely different type of beverage.
So Nadeau called to offer a concession: He would promise to stay out of the energy-drink biz if Hansen stayed out of brewing. No luck. "Their third-party lawyer ? believes they'll likely pursue lawsuits and [proceedings against] trademark infringement," Hansen says.
”
Neadeau says it could cost $15,000 to defend himself in court, and guess what — he's gonna. You go,dude. He says in the story:
“
"They think, We're just gonna steamroll it ? We'll take this little Vermont company and squash them. Well, sorry."
”
Why must there be so many monster lawsuits?
By Meg Marco on October 14, 2009 4:23 PM 18523 views
Matt Nadeau, the owner of a tiny Vermont brewery being sued by the makers of the Monster energy drink for brewing a beer called "Vermonster," has taken his case to the people. He says that trademark attorneys keep telling him the law is with him, but that he should just give up because it will be too expensive to litigate. "This is just about principle," Nadeau told the AP. "Corporate America can't be allowed to do this, in this day and age. It's just not right."
The dispute has arisen because Hansen, the maker of Monster Energy Drink wants to enter the alcoholic beverage market.
"I said `Too bad, I'm already here.' I've been here. And I'm already brewing beer," said Nadeau.
Here's an interview with Mr. Nadeau:
Monster-maker to Vt. brewer: No 'Vermonster' beer [AP] (Thanks, Gene!)
More About: trademarks, vermonster, beer, hansen, Monster Energy, lawsuits
181 Comments Prev: Man Twists Amazon's Arm, Gets It To Accept Money It Gave Away
Next: Thief Runs Up $10,000 Credit Card Bill Using Only Name, Address, Social, DOB
Post a commentSign in to comment.
Name
Email Address
URL
Remember personal info?
Comments (You may use HTML tags for style) Enter text...
Comments:181 Expand AllCollapse All<< Older Comments 1 - 50Newer Comments >> RecordStoreToughGuy_KnowsThreeChords
October 14, 2009 4:27 PMModerate | Flag for review
If he had the trademark first, why isn't he countersuing and forcing Monster Cabl-- I mean, Monster Energy Drinks to pay him a licensing fee?
Reply10 replies
Dennis
October 14, 2009 6:45 PMModerate |Flag for review
@RecordStoreToughGuy_HadCakeAndIceCreamForLunch: How do you figure that he [Rock Art] had the trademark first? From what I can tell by looking at the US Patent and Trade Office website the "Monster Energy" mark was "first use[d] in commerce" in 2002, while the "Vermoster" mark was "first use[d] in commerce" in 2006.
I'm certainly not on Hanson's side on this one, I agree that the likelihood of confusion is, in all reasonableness, close to zero, and that they are in separate markets. But, based on Hanson's letter to Rock Art, and Rock Art's response, Hanson appears to be claiming that they have a desire to enter the alcoholic beverage market.
From Rock Art's response:
"Your response was that, 'the energy drink category was never the concern to my client; it is that my client [Hanson] would now like to enter the alcoholic beverage market.'"
The truth or falsity of that statement is up in the air, and it certainly looks and smells a lot like corporate bullying. However, it does muddy the water, at least from a legal standpoint. Bearing all of that in mind, I still don't think people are going to confuse Monster Energy (alcoholic or non) and Vermonster -- at least no one with taste buds.
Reply
theart
October 16, 2009 1:31 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Dennis: Right, but just because you file a trademark in one market does not give you protection in other markets. Note that Hansen is not trying to sue Unilever for the "Vermonster Sundae" sold at Ben & Jerry's scoop shops, and they didn't jump on Rock Art in 2006. Well, that and the fact that Unilever probably has a pretty scary legal department. They're only bringing this up now because they want the "Monster" soft drink trademark to apply to a "Monster" alcoholic beverage that they do not yet manufacture.
Reply
iron_chef
October 14, 2009 6:38 PMModerate |Flag for review
@RecordStoreToughGuy_HadCakeAndIceCreamForLunch: Because his first choice...VerCocaCola was taken. ;)
Reply
Android8675
October 14, 2009 6:26 PMModerate |Flag for review
@RecordStoreToughGuy_HadCakeAndIceCreamForLunch: Not everyone is sue happy in the states, a lot of small businesses are happy running "small businesses", novel concept, but not everyones idea of success has the same number of zeros in their profit margins (Account statments? whatever...).
Reply
mythago
October 14, 2009 6:22 PMModerate |Flag for review
@RecordStoreToughGuy_HadCakeAndIceCreamForLunch: Because he's not worried about Monster Booze being confused with Vermonster, and he's not a dick?
Reply
A Penguin On The Telly
October 14, 2009 6:13 PMModerate |Flag for review
@RecordStoreToughGuy_HadCakeAndIceCreamForLunch: He trademarked 'Vermonster' 4 years after Hansen trademarked 'Monster'. This guy has no case.
Reply
jacques
October 15, 2009 1:34 AMModerate |Flag for review
@A Penguin On The Telly: Registered your account just to make this comment? I smell astroturf....
Anyhow, "Monster" energy drink and "Vermonster" beer aren't likely to be confused as being from the same manufacturer.
Reply
katsuyakaiba
October 14, 2009 6:03 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Sockatume:
What does that say about us as a country? It's disheartening to hear that somebody could own a trademark way before any big company and yet still get pushed over, sued, and expected take it just because they don't have as many lawyers as the big company.
Reply
Sockatume
October 14, 2009 4:30 PMModerate |Flag for review
@RecordStoreToughGuy_HadCakeAndIceCreamForLunch: Like he says, cost. You can go through the trademark dispute process, win, and recoup your legal costs, but to get that far you have to have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay the fees and travel costs in the first place.
It's like trying to cross a mountain range. It's all downhill on the other side, but if you can't get to the top in the first place, you're screwed.
Reply
formatc
October 14, 2009 5:10 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Sockatume:
It's like trying to cross a mountain range. It's all downhill on the other side, but if you can't get to the top in the first place, you're screwed.
And that's why I don't walk to work.
Reply
foxbat2500
October 14, 2009 4:29 PMModerate |Flag for review
Does anyone have Monster's contact info so we can voice our outrage?
Reply12 replies
MikeHerbst
October 14, 2009 5:54 PMModerate |Flag for review
@foxbat2500:
Monster Energy is owned by Hansen's Natural.
They have a web comment form here:
[www.hansens.com]
And list this contact info on their page:
Contact By Mail
Hansen Beverage Company
Attention: Customer Relations
1010 Railroad Street
Corona, CA 92882
or
Contact us by Phone:
1-800-HANSENS or
1-800-426-7367
Reply
dohtem
October 14, 2009 6:47 PMModerate |Flag for review
@MikeHerbst:
550 Monica Circle, Suite 201
Corona, California 92880
(Address of principal executive offices)
(951) 739 - 6200
From their SEC filings. Is this public service or civil disobedience? :)
Reply
dohtem
October 14, 2009 6:41 PMModerate |Flag for review
@MikeHerbst: I'm trying to figure out how we can EECB them.
Their SEC filings are online.
[www.sec.gov]
Now to wade through all those docs for contact information.
Reply
magus_melchior
October 14, 2009 6:31 PMModerate |Flag for review
@MikeHerbst: Posted as "investor relations" to scare the crap out of them (as I do own HANS shares) in addition to voicing my displeasure:
'I am a (admittedly very small) investor in Hansen's Natural. While I'm sure that most of your investor profile will not care about a Vermont microbrewery, I will drop my investment and encourage others to do so if Hansen's continues its litigation of Rock Art Brewery over its product, the "Vermonster". Profits and earnings mean little to me if it entails crushing non-competitors Apple-style.'
Reply
b4k4
October 14, 2009 5:58 PMModerate |Flag for review
@MikeHerbst: Posted my complaint
"Recently I learned you have filed a trademark suit against Vermont brewing company Rock Art regarding their beer the "Vermonster". This type of frivolous lawsuit against a small company who, besides being no threat to you, has a beer with a name that in no way will cause someone to mistake it for your product in unacceptable I just wanted to inform you that I refuse to purchase your product ever again unless a formal apology to Rock Art is made. Good Day"
not that it'll have an effect, but who knows
Reply
lmarconi
October 14, 2009 6:17 PMModerate |Flag for review
@pxf9641: Posted my complaint too. I actually buy and like their product - not anymore.
I'm not condoning them pushing around a fellow New Englander : )
You'd think that in this economic climate companies would learn that in-your-face corporate greed reflects very very badly on them.
Reply
jc364
October 14, 2009 5:32 PMModerate |Flag for review
@foxbat2500: You have to enter your cell phone number in order to leave feedback!? That's all sorts of evil.
Reply
Timbojones
October 14, 2009 6:13 PMModerate |Flag for review
@jc364: PROTIP: You can give a fake number. Try the main line of your state Attorney General.
Reply
tinyhands
October 15, 2009 3:09 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Timbojones: And use this address--
1060 W. Addison
Chicago, IL 60613
Reply
jc364
October 14, 2009 11:55 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Timbojones: Very nice tip.
Reply
El_Fez
October 14, 2009 5:52 PMModerate |Flag for review
@jc364: Looks like Tommy Tu-Tone is getting another phone call!
(What? 867-5309 is my default number for these circumstances!)
Reply
sybann
October 14, 2009 5:58 PMModerate |Flag for review
@El_Fez: AND if you select "complaint" as your reason then verification will fail - select other.
What weasels.
Reply
Jeff-er-ee
October 14, 2009 5:11 PMModerate |Flag for review
@foxbat2500:
Snail mail and phone, from the Hansen's site:
Hansen Beverage Company
Attention: Customer Relations
1010 Railroad Street
Corona, CA 92882
or
Contact us by Phone:
1-800-HANSENS or
1-800-426-7367
Reply
rworne
October 14, 2009 5:01 PMModerate |Flag for review
@foxbat2500:
Why not email the Monster Cable people and tell them you ordered what you thought was a set $100 HDMI cables and got a case of energy drinks instead.
Getting these two behemoths at each other's throats would be entertaining.
Reply
nullrout
October 14, 2009 5:07 PMModerate |Flag for review
@rworne:
A set of Monster cables for $100? Don't you mean "A" Monster cable?
Reply
foxbat2500
October 14, 2009 4:30 PMModerate |Flag for review
@foxbat2500:
[www.monsterenergy.com]
Reply
nbs2
October 14, 2009 4:30 PMModerate |Flag for review
Wait, wait, wait.
They are going after him because they want to enter his market?
Hey folks, I'm starting a new business. I'm going to blend Gatorade and Mountain Dew syrup, and then boil it down, and finally add some carbonated water. Because it is a Frankenstein like concoction, I'm going to call it Monster Power drink. These Hansen guys need to back off since I want in on their market.
Reply2 replies
ludwigk
October 14, 2009 8:35 PMModerate |Flag for review
@nbs2: Does monster's trademark include alcoholic beverages and beer? Seems like it would be a relevant question as well.
Reply
lotussix
October 14, 2009 4:44 PMModerate |Flag for review
@nbs2: i'm pretty sure if you called it "monster power drink" the monster energy people might object to that.
Reply
remington870_20ga
October 14, 2009 4:31 PMModerate |Flag for review
He shouldnt have to go to court on this. A hearing will end it by a judge throwing out the lawsuit.
Reply4 replies
mythago
October 14, 2009 6:23 PMModerate |Flag for review
@remington870_20ga: He still has to get to the point of a judge throwing out the lawsuit, and that's not free.
Reply
ubermex
October 14, 2009 4:52 PMModerate |Flag for review
@remington870_20ga: The problem is that monster will be FLOODING him with legal documents that need to be dealt with and if a single one of them isn't dealt with properly then they tell the judge that he's not cooperating and win their case. That's why it's so expensive to defend against.
Reply
zacox
October 14, 2009 4:35 PMModerate |Flag for review
@remington870_20ga: Yes, I agree. He should file a demurrer or for summary judgment right away. Both, if granted in his favor, would put a stop to things quickly.
Reply
Darrone
October 14, 2009 4:46 PMModerate |Flag for review
@zacox: Can you get a summary judgement in the trademark dispute process? I don't believe thats an option, as there is currently no "lawsuit" (remember, monster doesnt sue people, they just challenge all of there trademarks).
Also, I'm sure Monster $2k an hour lawyers could provide enough BS to get past summary.
Reply
psm321
October 14, 2009 5:27 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Darrone: Just FYI, this is a different Monster from the usual one (it seems the name itself is cursed)
Reply
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
October 14, 2009 4:31 PMModerate |Flag for review
mmmhm, corporate bullying.
they're acting like children -
"i want that!"
"no, i had it first"
"i'm bigger than you!" *punches Matt and takes his brewery*
Reply6 replies
madog
October 14, 2009 11:22 PMModerate |Flag for review
@gStein: You have somehow managed to start the worst conversation ever.
Reply
Hobz
October 14, 2009 7:05 PMModerate |Flag for review
@gStein: I get what treimel is saying.
mmmhm, corporate bullying.
they're acting like children -
"i want that!"
"no, i had it first"
"i'm bigger than you!" *punches Matt and takes his brewery*
The above comment lumps the brewery into the notion that they are also acting like children by defending their position.
"How is this brewer being childish, exactly?"
They are not.
Reply
treimel
October 14, 2009 4:59 PMModerate |Flag for review
@gStein:
How is this brewer being childish, exactly? Monster energy drinks are being bullies, that's for sure, but I hardly see what he's doing wrong.
Reply
Thumbmaster
October 14, 2009 5:11 PMModerate |Flag for review
@treimel: I believe you read it backwards. gStein is refering to Monster Energy drinks as children.
Reply
treimel
October 14, 2009 5:15 PMModerate |Flag for review
@thumbmaster:
Well, maybe, but that's not what was written: How could "No I had it first" refer to anyone but the brewer; the implication is that Monster's finding with themselves? I don't think so.
Reply
Charlotte Rae's Web
October 14, 2009 6:10 PMModerate |Flag for review
@treimel: It was a fake conversation to make a point. he's not ragging on the brewer! you are being way too literal if you think that.
Reply
Xerloq, we are all made of stars.
October 14, 2009 5:53 PMModerate |Flag for review
@treimel: I think you're the only one who didn't get it. It's to whom gstein is referring.
"Monster are acting like children" is a perfectly acceptable construction in English when referring to a corporate entity.
Reply
Nytmare
October 14, 2009 6:21 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Xerloq speaks Portuguese, too...: That construction is normal in British English, not in American English.
Reply
treimel
October 14, 2009 6:02 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Xerloq speaks Portuguese, too...:
ugggh--"I had it first" only makes sense: 1) for the person who, I dunno, *had it first* (the brewer) and 2) was responding to the person who said "I want that" (Monster/Hansen.)
At this point I get what was *attempted* to be written, but it's not what they wrote.
Also, I made no reference to "are acting like children" so I don't know who you're responding to there.
Reply
b4k4
October 14, 2009 6:00 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Xerloq speaks Portuguese, too...: People, dont feed the troll
Reply
treimel
October 14, 2009 5:15 PMModerate |Flag for review
@treimel:
"finding" = "fighting."
Reply
FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR
October 14, 2009 5:02 PMModerate |Flag for review
@treimel:
--------------- The point ------------------>
You
Reply
treimel
October 14, 2009 5:06 PMModerate |Flag for review
@FooSchnickens - Now with .308 action!:
Yeah, I admit it; please explain to me how "they" doesn't mean *both* parties.
Reply
LMacConn
October 14, 2009 6:05 PMModerate |Flag for review
@treimel: "they" was most likely in reference to the *corporate bullying* at the end of the previous line.
This is reinforced if you believe that bullying someone is childish, whereas being the target/victim - particularly a target who chooses to stand up against the bully - is neither childish nor child-like.
Reply
treimel
October 14, 2009 6:11 PMModerate |Flag for review
@LMacConn:
If you're trying to contrast the two, why would you write "I had it first" then? It doesn't get a lot more childish then saying "I had it first," I *get* what was attempted, it just doesn't work logically. And with that, I respectfully bow out of this and wonder why I spent fifteen minutes of my life on a silly internnet sentence construction dispute. :)
@pfx--learn what "trolling" actually is, get some friends and get some followers, then we'll talk.
Reply
b4k4
October 14, 2009 6:28 PMModerate |Flag for review
@treimel: No cause I dont like talking to douchebags
Reply
treimel
October 14, 2009 6:32 PMModerate |Flag for review
@pxf9641:
Really? That's the best you could do? Try again; you can do better.
Reply
Elcheecho
October 14, 2009 6:46 PMModerate |Flag for review
@treimel: dude let it go. everyone else got it, even if it wasn't technically correct.
Reply
treimel
October 14, 2009 6:48 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Elcheecho:
I hereby let it go--sadly, my literalism has already made it the most discussed comment. oops.
Reply
Naame
October 14, 2009 4:50 PMModerate |Flag for review
@gStein: So simple yet so true. Some people never actually grow up now do they? They just convince themselves that they have.
Reply
rpm773
October 14, 2009 4:32 PMModerate |Flag for review
He should call Monster Cable and ask for help against Monster Energy Drink, who will in turn enlist the help of Monster.com.
Reply6 replies
Hooray4Zoidberg
October 14, 2009 5:22 PMModerate |Flag for review
@rpm773: Why does this only seem to be an issue with companies named Monster? Where did they suddenly get the idea that "monster" is a unique and rarely used word for a product?
Reply
coren
October 14, 2009 4:54 PMModerate |Flag for review
@rpm773: Monster.com has already been cowed by these monster lawsuits (pun intended)
Reply
lilyHaze
October 14, 2009 4:51 PMModerate |Flag for review
@rpm773: Nah, he should enlist the help of the Monster miniature golf company that won against Monster Cable.
Reply
YouDidWhatNow?
October 14, 2009 4:53 PMModerate |Flag for review
@lilyHaze: @Real Cheese Flavor:
...which begs the question why Monster Energy Drink hasn't sued Monster Cable yet - or vice-versa.
Reply
nybiker
October 14, 2009 5:00 PMModerate |Flag for review
@YouDidWhatNow?: Hey now, no 'begging the question' comments. ;-)
Reply
treimel
October 14, 2009 5:17 PMModerate |Flag for review
@nybiker:
Forget it--that ship has sailed a long, long time ago.
Reply
Megalomania
October 14, 2009 4:58 PMModerate |Flag for review
@YouDidWhatNow?: That is not what begging the question means.
Reply
cecilpl
October 14, 2009 8:24 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Megalomania: That begs the question, aren't you begging the question of why "begging the question" can't mean what most people think it means?
You're merely asserting that it doesn't mean "raising the question" even thought that's what most people use it to mean.
Reply
godlyfrog
October 14, 2009 11:01 PMModerate |Flag for review
@cecilpl: That's like saying that using "your" in place of "you're" really means "you're" because that's how most people use it.
Reply
YouDidWhatNow?
October 14, 2009 5:16 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Megalomania:
I don't even get what the hell they're trying to say there. I don't even see what would be an "acceptable" use of BTQ there.
But whatever. Substitute "raises" for "begs" if it makes you feel better.
Reply
mianne
October 15, 2009 7:20 AMModerate |Flag for review
@YouDidWhatNow?: Some valid uses of BTQ: "You should learn to speak Arabic, because everyone needs to know a second language."
"I can't concentrate, because I have trouble focusing." Or perhaps the best known meme: [itodyaso.files.wordpress.com]
Reply
Real Cheese Flavor
October 14, 2009 4:37 PMModerate |Flag for review
@rpm773: I'm really surprised it's not Monster Cable that's going after him.
Reply
TechnoDestructo
October 14, 2009 5:14 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Real Cheese Flavor:
It probably IS Monster Cable behind this. I mean does Monster Energy Drink have a history of this sort of litigiousness? (I don't know for sure that they don't.) Monster Cable could be manipulating Monster energy drink, maybe by altering the terms of their settlement.
This would not be a unique situation. Microsoft was behind SCO's lawsuits against Linux companies.
Reply
RPHP
October 14, 2009 7:48 PMModerate |Flag for review
@TechnoDestructo: I know Monster Cable sued Monster Energy Drink but I never saw what the outcome was. Do you have a link to an article about the settlement? As far as I knew there was no settlement.
Reply
AustinTXProgrammer
October 14, 2009 5:25 PMModerate |Flag for review
@TechnoDestructo: Monster Cable sued Monster Energy drink, and Monster pays/paid them for the rights in the beverage market. I bet it cost them a lot and includes terms that they protect the trademark.
Reply
Rachacha
October 14, 2009 5:43 PMModerate |Flag for review
@AustinTXProgrammer: So wait, Monster sued Monster, and Monster lost the case, so Monster has to license the rights to the Monster name from Monster, and Monster has to defend the Monster trademark for any beverage company that utilizes the Monster name. And now Monster is suing a company called Vermonster because the company name contains the letters M-O-N-S-T-E-R in sequence and may cause confusion among consumers who will immediately associate Vermonster with VER-Monster rather than VERMON-ster, or VERMONT-ster.
I think I have just created the modern day version of the classic commedy skit "Who's on First"
Reply
AirIntake
October 14, 2009 7:10 PMModerate |Flag for review
@Rachacha: Except in your version, Who is in every position.
Reply
benbell
October 14, 2009 4:33 PMModerate |Flag for review
As was said before... what does Ben & Jerry's think about this?
[en.wikipedia.org]
Reply3 replies
ScarletsWalk
October 14, 2009 4:51 PMModerate |Flag for review
@benbell: That was the first thing I heard of too.
I missed the story the other day.
Reply
remington870_20ga
October 14, 2009 4:40 PMModerate |Flag for review
@benbell: Because Ben & Jerry are too high to care.
Reply
nbs2
October 14, 2009 4:51 PMModerate |Flag for review
@remington870_20ga: No, they're too busy counting the payout from Unilever to care.
Reply
remington870_20ga
October 14, 2009 5:23 PMModerate |Flag for review
@nbs2: I didnt know they sold out. I guess I missed that story.
Reply
hi
October 14, 2009 5:51 PMModerate |Flag for review
@remington870_20ga: Wait... thats the precident this guy needs. Ben and Jerrys have the name and they are not being sued by Monster.
If Monster sues this guy then they also need to sue Ben and Jerrys.
BTW: I have a new terrabyte harddrive called Vermonster. The logo is of a guy named "Vermon" and this is his terrabyte drive, hense the "ter" on the end of the name. Sue me.
Reply
TalKeaton: Every Puzzle Has an Answer!
October 14, 2009 5:02 PMModerate |Flag for review
@nbs2: Yeahhhh... Unilever. Even Ben and Jerry know that was a bad decision.
Reply
GitEmSteveDave_I'mMonkeypig
October 14, 2009 4:33 PMModerate |Flag for review
He needs to get the "United Breaks Guitars" guy to make a song and video and call it "Monster hates American Businesses" and put it on YouTube.
But if this guy makes a kit like the Naked Cowboy did when he ran for Mayor, I will gladly contribute $15 for a t-shirt or Bumper Sticker and support him.
Reply2 replies
shepd
October 14, 2009 4:55 PMModerate |Flag for review
@GitEmSteveDave_I'mMonkeypig:
Shouldn't be a problem for him.
Dave Carroll (Mr. Broken Guitar) is nothing but a sellout whore for big media, anyways.
No, I didn't see that coming, either.
The backstory: In Canada, it is legal to rebroadcast OTA TV without paying fees. Cable Cos do this, and they don't pay broadcasters, although they charge their customers for basic cable which is mostly filled with these stations. Broadcasters want a cut of this money which is presently used partially to fund repairing/upgrading the cable system and, of course, for profits.
That in and of itself wouldn't be a problem, but the big media broadcasters who paid for his AD (CTV et al.) want cable to absorb these fees they want to impose without passing costs on to customers. On what planet does a capitalist company start giving handouts to people without charging someone for it?
Fuck Dave Carroll. He's an ass.
Reply
AirIntake
October 14, 2009 5:35 PMModerate |Flag for review
@shepd: Yeah, why should cable tv companies pay carrier fees? It makes sense to owe a channel a carrier fee, when the channel is something like HBO that makes its money from carrier fees. OTA TV on the other hand can't argue that it's losing money from no carrier fees because it makes its money from advertising, and literally gives the channel away for free over the air. Unless the cable company is cutting out the ads (which they don't) then the OTA TV station is still making the same ad revenue it always did. In fact, it could be argued that since cable rebroadcast allows the OTA TV station to reach more people, that they make even more ad revenue because of it. If anything, perhaps the OTA TV stations should pay the cable company to carry them.
You have to remember where cable companies came from. People (usually farmers) with poor reception back in the day would get together and gather funds in order to place an antenna on the nearest hill. They would then run cables to the nearby farmhouses in the valleys. Under this early scenario, it's easy to see that the OTA TV station doesn't deserve any money. It was just a community antenna, and OTA TV stations have no say over what kind of antenna you can and can't use. Over time, cable companies evolved, moved into towns, added amplifiers, and then added cable only stations, but a community antenna was how it started.
Reply
robocop is bleeding
October 14, 2009 4:38 PMModerate |Flag for review
Here's hoping there's some Rock Art brews at my local New England liquor store, as I want to drink my support and support my right to drink Vermonster!
Reply
jscott73
October 14, 2009 4:38 PMModerate |Flag for review
Contact Info:
Rock Art Brewery: [www.rockartbrewery.com]
Hansen's Conact Info: [www.hansens.com]
Reply2 replies
deejmer
October 15, 2009 2:04 PMModerate |Flag for review
@jscott73: Thanks.... that link allowed me to send a warm note to this company. I urge everyone to do the same and let them know the public finds this practice deplorable.
Reply
dohtem
October 14, 2009 6:59 PMModerate |Flag for review
@jscott73:
[investors.hansens.com]
Reply
TehQ
October 14, 2009 4:39 PMModerate |Flag for review
He needs to go on talk shows like good morning america. They love that kind of thing, big evil corp. picking on the smaller guy. Eventually Monster/Hasen will get so much bad press they will drop the suit.
Reply
FREAKHEAD
October 14, 2009 4:39 PMModerate |Flag for review
It's ridiculous that anyone can make claims over such a common word.
Reply5 replies
Smashville_OrderingOJandTakingNames
October 14, 2009 6:37 PMModerate |Flag for review
@FREAKHEAD: I always wanted to create a band called "More" and have a side project called "Others"...and then sue concert promoters.
Reply
RedCatLinux
October 14, 2009 6:31 PMModerate |Flag for review
@FREAKHEAD: The makers of 'Ridiculous' the new frangrance with... somebody or other's name on it... will be contacting you shortly to slap your post with a cease and desist.
Reply
katsuyakaiba
October 14, 2009 6:06 PMModerate |Flag for review
@FREAKHEAD:
I'm going to make a company called "THE" and trademark the hell out of it. No other company better have "THE" in their business name or I'll sue the hell out of them!
Reply
cabjf
October 14, 2009 5:54 PMModerate |Flag for review
@FREAKHEAD: Wasn't Microsoft involved in something like this when they sued the makers of Lindows? I thought the outcome was that a word as common as windows could not be trademarked.
Reply
ryan89
October 14, 2009 6:16 PMModerate |Flag for review
@cabjf: They settled. Microsoft paid Lindows a ton of money to change their name to Linspire. I think it stopped production a few years ago anyway.
Reply
RPHP
October 14, 2009 7:51 PMModerate |Flag for review
@ryan89: @cabjf: What happened was the judge in the Lindows case started to make noise that the term Windows may simply be descriptive. Windows, fearing an actual ruling to this effect paid Lindows to go away.
Anyway, the idea that a term is common does not necessarily mean it can not be trademarked - see Secondary Meaning in Trademark Law. However, if something is simply descriptive it can not be trademarked such as calling actual paint "paint".
Reply
twophrasebark
October 14, 2009 4:40 PMModerate |Flag for review
It's not clear from the articles whether Monster has actually filed suit against him. It sounds like they're just saber rattling.
Monster knows they have a really poor case. As soon as they realize he's not going to back down, they will probably give up.
Reply
doctor_cos wants you to remain calm
October 14, 2009 4:44 PMModerate |Flag for review
Hansen's is the stuff. Mandarin Lime FTW.
Reply1 replies
bohemian
October 14, 2009 5:18 PMModerate |Flag for review
@doctor_cos: No longer at my house. The kids pick up Hansen's fruit sodas at the food coop frequently. Time to switch to something else.
Reply
dmolavi
October 14, 2009 4:48 PMModerate |Flag for review
Ben & Jerry's should get in on this...they've got a Vermonster ice cream:
"A monster of a sundae - 20 scoops of ice cream, hot fudge, banana, cookies, brownies, and all of your favorite toppings."
Reply2 replies
ryan89
October 14, 2009 6:37 PMModerate |Flag for review
@dmolavi: As soon as Hansen's starts making ice cream I'm sure they will.
Reply
PsiCop
October 14, 2009 8:24 PMModerate |Flag for review
@ryan89: But according to trademark law, they HAVE TO sue IN ADVANCE of getting into the ice cream market. If they wait, they'll have allowed the trademark to be diluted already and will have forfeited their right to use it in conjunction with ice cream.
At least, that's the justification that lawyers have offered, for these suits ... "prevention of trademark dilution."
Reply
theart
October 16, 2009 1:35 PMModerate |Flag for review
@PsiCop: Could be a tough sell. Usually in order to base a suit on prevention of trademark dilution, it needs to be brought immediately. If you wait three years the trademark is already as diluted as it's going to get.
Reply
AthronofEryndor
October 14, 2009 4:50 PMModerate |Flag for review
Sounds like it was a C&D letter, not a lawsuit so far.
Lawyers are smart enough to know that throwing a C&D letter at someone, even if baseless, is usually a cheap way to get compliance. There's a good chance even Monster has no intentions of going further than a scary lawyer letter.
Reply
MeOhMy
October 14, 2009 4:50 PMModerate |Flag for review
If I was a lawyer, I'd totaly take this case on a pro beero basis.
Reply5 replies
runswithscissors
October 15, 2009 3:01 AMModerate |Flag for review
@MeOhMy: Well played. :)
Reply
mythago
October 14, 2009 6:25 PMModerate |Flag for review
@MeOhMy: I totally would if I were an IP lawyer :(
Reply
godlyfrog
October 14, 2009 11:16 PMModerate |Flag for review
@mythago: With enough beer, EVERY lawyer is an "I pee" lawyer.
Reply
ClutchDude
October 14, 2009 5:06 PMModerate |Flag for review
@MeOhMy: Now's that the kind of lawyering we can ALL get behind.
Reply
ARP
October 14, 2009 5:01 PMModerate |Flag for review
@MeOhMy: I see what you did there....and I strongly approve.
Yes, if I had the time, I would help him as well. This is too far from EFF for them to get involved.
Reply
PLATTWORX
October 14, 2009 4:52 PMModerate |Flag for review
Well, it is true that "Vermonster" and "Monster" are similar and Monster could say that consumers may think "Vermonster" is made my Monster and could create "confusion within the marketplace".
Maybe this guy had the rights first. Hansen's may back down. These are often just warnings.
Now, some small business owners are just stupid. I read a story recently about one who opened a sandwich shop named "STEAKWAYS" and was stunned when "SUBWAY" sued him. He lost and he knew damn well people would relate one to the other when he named his business. He even used a similar logo.
Reply2 replies
Charlotte Rae's Web
October 14, 2009 6:31 PMModerate |Flag for review
@PLATTWORX: like McDowells ;)
Reply
Hooray4Zoidberg
October 14, 2009 6:26 PMModerate |Flag for review
@PLATTWORX: Haha, there is an old logo painted on the back side of an old building near my house for a long gone local donut shop call Dippin Donuts. The letters and colors are exactly the same as Dunkin Donuts logo.
Of course this is only a town over from Quincy where Dunkin Donuts originated, I have no clue how old the sign is but it's always intriguing when I pass it and I wonder if it's a shameless ripoff or if it's the victim of one.
Reply
cmdrsass
October 14, 2009 4:54 PMModerate |Flag for review
I've been through this same process - a small town business being sued by a big city business. Even though we were clearly holding a valid trademark and had done everything properly, and the people suing us knew it and had no valid claims, and the judge knew it, it still cost us $250,000 we could ill afford over three years. (and that was considered 'quick'). We fought it on principle and eventually won. Those bastards.
Reply3 replies
bohemian
October 14, 2009 5:19 PMModerate |Flag for review
@cmdrsass: There needs to be something in the process that gets the other party to pay your legal costs if the judge deems the suit harassing and without merit.
Reply
PsiCop
October 14, 2009 7:49 PMModerate |Flag for review
@bohemian: Actually this is part of the legal process. An order to pay legal costs can be included in an award. The problem is, it very often doesn't happen, either because the court simply decides not to make that order, or because it's bargained/negotiated away. In other words ... the rule is on the books, but it's not applied consistently enough to be a true deterrent.
Which is basically how the legal system wants things to be. A legal system that discouraged lawsuits would be shooting itself in the foot and depriving too many good, honest, working sharks (er, attorneys) of their hard-earned opportunity to make millions, feeding at the trough of public commerce.
Reply
Andyf
October 14, 2009 6:14 PMModerate |Flag for review
@bohemian: I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is. sadly, it's a small price to pay occasionally when they can't break the small business first.
That's why they should have to pay triple damages on it, at least. there needs to be a real deterrent.
Reply
thisistobehelpful
October 14, 2009 4:55 PMModerate |Flag for review
So wait, they want pre-sue him for infringment? Doesn't that mean that they are infringing on HIS trademark? I'm sorry, so his lawyers are telling him he's safe but it's expensive to fight it and Monster is saying they want him to give up the name because they want to make some crap malt liquor energy drink in the future and want the road cleared for them. Doesn't that mean if they DO make an alcoholic beverage with Monster on it he'd be able to sue THEM?
Reply2 replies
AustinTXProgrammer
October 14, 2009 5:31 PMModerate |Flag for review
@thisistobehelpful: I think they are saying they already own the trademark rights to Monster in the realm of beverages. If they don't defend it their rights will be diluted to only mean non-alcoholic beverages which would be a major blow when they already have a product on their roadmap.
I actually understand where they are coming from. They should just ink an agreement that Monster and Vermonster in very different fonts aren't related and that they will never sue each other. I don't think consumers would be confused, and they can both win.
Without defending their agreement now and getting a written agreement, they would be at risk of being sued themselves, and they paid Monster Cable a lot of money, so I can see why they want to protect their turf.
Reply
thisistobehelpful
October 15, 2009 3:23 AMModerate |Flag for review
@AustinTXProgrammer: But doesn't trademark violation in the case of words and not images require that the name be the same?
Reply
HomerSampson
October 14, 2009 4:58 PMModerate |Flag for review
Im surprised Monster Cables hasn't tried to sue since they sue anybody with monster in their name lol...
Reply2 replies
iron_chef
October 14, 2009 6:40 PMModerate |Flag for review
@HomerSampson: The Monster Cable legal team is too busy trying to sue all the trick or treaters this coming halloween.
Reply
HomerSampson
October 14, 2009 5:07 PMModerate |Flag for review
@HomerSampson: Tell monster how you feel right here [www.monsterenergy.com]
Reply
epb
October 14, 2009 5:03 PMModerate |Flag for review
Just doing a quick search on Beer Advocate, there are 32 current beers (and 2 retired) with the name monster in it and yet Monster Energy thinks they have a case against a brewer who is using a play on the word "monster". Give me a break.
Reply
spankdidly
October 14, 2009 5:08 PMModerate |Flag for review
Eh, lets just Boycott them like the good ole' days. I dont buy Monster anyway, so that one's easy.
Reply3 replies
katsuyakaiba
October 14, 2009 6:10 PMModerate |Flag for review
@spankdidly:
Eh, Monster Energy Drink tastes like ass. I'm more of a Jolt Cola girl.
Reply
frank64
October 14, 2009 5:11 PMModerate |Flag for review
@spankdidly: Yeah, I would be inclined to boycott them too, but I don't buy the stuff. Too bad.
Reply
b4k4
October 14, 2009 6:31 PMModerate |Flag for review
@frank64: I plan on requesting my local VT grocery stores show solidarity by refusing to carry Hansen products. Probably wont work, but eh
Reply
<< Older Comments 1 - 50Newer Comments >> Mar 9, 2010 | 31 posts in the last 24 hours
Related Posts LifeLock Settles With FTC For $11 Million Over False Claims In Ads
Chris Morran
March 9, 2010 2:23 PM Colorado Teen Arrested For Overdue DVD
Chris Morran
March 9, 2010 11:01 AM Amazon Cut Ties With Affiliates In Yet Another State Over Taxes
Chris Morran
March 9, 2010 9:35 AM
Hot Stories Colorado Teen Arrested For Overdue DVD » Macy's Adds Monthly $2 'Educational Interest' Charge To My Credit Card Bill » Toyota Prius Runs Wild At 90mph With Stuck Accelerator » Salmonella In Common Food Additive Leads To Recall Of Pretty Much Every Food Ever » Xbox Live No Longer Bans Gay People From Describing Themselves »
FeaturedPopularCheck Out The Secret McMenu Item That's Sweeping SF, The Mc10:35
Do A Total Background Check On Yourself
Comcast: 'Unlimited Usage' Doesn't Mean 'Unlimited Usage'
Why A Salad Costs More Than A Big Mac
Woman Goes In For Boob Job, Comes Out With "Four Breasts"
Why Was I Banned From Walmart For Not Showing My Receipt?
The Really Big Guide To Secret Menu Items
Burgled Domino's Delivery Guy Ordered To Pay Back Money Stolen From Him
Do A Total Background Check On Yourself
Let's Ask BillShrink About Credit Cards Under The CARD Act
Cash4Gold Stops Suing Whistleblowers; FL AG Launches Investigation
Congressman Demands FTC Probe Of Cash4Gold
Secret Credit Card Backdoor Numbers To Get Your Credit Increased, APR Changed, Etc!
Best Buy Optimization Is A Big Stupid Annoying Waste Of Money
22 Greatest Consumerist Posts Of 2009
Consumerist's Top 10 Ads Of 2009
Video
Lindsay Lohan Sues E*Trade Over Talking Baby Commercial
2 Dead Economists In An Epic Rap Battle
Zero Nutritional Difference Between Campbell's "Healthy" Tomato Soups And Regular, Just Higher Price
Cablevision Produces New Bitchy Video Loop Aimed At ABC
VIDEO: Stores Caught Restocking Used Underwear & LingerieTopics Customer Service
Above and Beyond
Canceling Accounts
Coupons and Rebates
Early Termination Fees
Returns and Exchanges
Stupid Shipping Gang
Warranty and Repair
Worst Customer Service Ever
Other Customer Service
How To
Ask the Consumerists
Be Frugal
Budgeting
EECBs
Executive Customer Service
Save Money
Other How To
Shopping
Airlines and Travel
Auto Dealers
Big Box Stores
Deals & Sales
E-commerce
Fast Food
Supermarkets
Other Shopping
Taking it seriously
Bad Consumers
Badvertising
Exclusives
Features
Government and Legal
Great Moments in Commercial History
Grocery Shrink Ray
Happy Endings
Horror Stories
Investigations
Pranks
Recalls and Safety
Recession Watch
Scams
Smoking Guns
Unacceptable Food
Worst Company In America
The Consumerist Team Ben Popken
Co-Managing Editor
EMAIL | TWITTER | AIM Meghann Marco
Co-Managing Editor
EMAIL | TWITTER Chris Morran
Senior Editor
EMAIL Laura Northrup
Weekend Editor
EMAIL | AIM Phil Villarreal
Associate Editor
EMAIL Chris Walters
Contributing Editor
EMAIL | TWITTER Comments Moderator: EMAIL | AIM Consumer Reports Samsung’s 3D TV offer: Buy a 3D TV and a 3D Blu-ray player, get 3D glasses and "Monsters vs. Aliens 3D" free
Cash for Appliances Update: Bigger rebates generate greater consumer interest
Smart back-to-school money moves for grown-ups, part 1
Daily Dispatch: 100 million lines of code in your car; Phone prototype reads lips
Inside Consumer Reports Test Labs: New vacuums from Bissell, Electrolux, Hoover, and Kalorik
Toyota Prius investigated after high-speed sudden acceleration incident
Language DVDs may not help tots to talk
Toyota experts refute sudden acceleration study, denounce author
Keeping PACE: Town of Babylon helps homeowners pay for green improvements
DIY: Creating music on your iPhone
GPS Buying Advice
Home Theater System Reviews
Camcorder Reviews
TV Buying Advice
Types of Blu-ray & DVD players
Computer Buying Advice
Digital Camera Buying Advice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment