I don't think anyone should be able to co-opt a word already in the public domain, such as "monster."
You are probably right. However, to prove you are right means going to court. While Monster [Cable] my not be Sony or Microsoft, I'm guessing their litigation war chest is much larger than Monster [the Golf course]. Thus, it becomes an easy business decision for Monster [golf] to just pay them $2,400 a month.
We lawyers can't feed our pet dragons for $2,400 a month, much less conduct the full-scale war that is business litigation. Litigating this to the end would cost Monster Golf millions, and a victory does not give Golf their legal fees back; it just lets you keep the name and their $2,400.
That is the reality of big business. Some (i.e., large companies) see it as the purest form of capitalism, others (i.e., everybody else) see it as an anticompetitive abuse of capitalism. But trademarks and patents are presumed valid until you prove them invalid. So Monster [Cable] can continue to attack every golf course, arcade, and lemonade stand that uses the unique phrase "monster" or any image associated therewith until someone stands up and defeats the trademark.
Not going to happen I’m afraid. Not until Microsoft designs Windows Monster, at which point Monster Cable will get hit with a suit from Mr. Gates, and Monster will cry that the bigger fish is abusing its monopoly power. Circle of life…
