Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Monster Cable sues yet again

Douché.

Careful, Charles, you don't want my lawyers coming after you!

Are they inflatable lawyers? I think I can handle them if they are.

*ding ding ding*

A cross-thread reference!!


They are akin to Otto the Autopilot.

Cute inflatable lawers? Maybe he can pitchfork two birds with one, um, pointy thing?

I love how monster tries to look like the nice guy, and agrees to charge monster mini golf a royalty fee of $100 per month to use the name "monster". And then just to show how nice they are they agree to use that $100 and match it with their own money and donate it to some charity that they probably own as well.

David, that's $100 per month, per franchise . Monster mini-golf currently has 24 franchises = $2400 per month to Monster Cable.

What I don't understand is, Monster Cable says "This lawsuit was never about the money.....It’s about the protection of our trademarks." YET, for a fee (ahem), they are willing to let Monster Mini Golf use that trademark they wish to "protect." Hmmm?

Monster Cable says:

"Monster Mini Golf is not small Mom-and-Pop business. In fact it is seemingly well funded national organization selling franchises with the Monster trademark that currently goes across 10 states..." [sarcasm]WOW! 24 golf courses in 10 states out of 50. They really are HUGE aren't they?[/sarcasm]

"...we are not a faceless corporate giant out to squash legitimate business concerns and rising entrepreneurs. We are in fact, a family-owned company..." OK, you're a family owned faceless corporate giant out to squash legitimate business concerns and rising entrepreneurs."

"We have always tried to provide our customers with the highest performance products at an affordable price."

I agree with Mark. If Monster Cable sold their product at reasonable prices, the public reaction to all this wouldn't be nearly as vociferous.

I love that Jack agrees with me.

Now to Google "vociferous" to see if I agree with HIM agreeing with me!

One more point. I'm not a lawyer so I don't pretend to understand how the law works in a case like this. Thus, what follows is just my opinion.

I don't think anyone should be able to co-opt a word already in the public domain, such as "monster." If one DOES choose to use a word already in the public domain, then you should be prepared for others to use the same word. If you want exclusivity, then make up a name that is not a word already in use, or combine a common word with another word(s) to create a unique name.

Lee, should have all rights to the name "Monster Cable." If a company starts manufacturing bridge cables, they cannot use the name "Monster Cable." If Monster Cable wishes to start a new company that manufactures Monster Mints, once registered, that name is theirs. But, if someone wants to have a miniature golf company, they should be free to call themselves Monster Mini Golf. I don't know about you, but, because the word monster is in the public domain, I would not automatically assume that Monster Cable and Monster Mini Golf are owned by the same people.

I realize that you are probably merely joking, but just in case:

vociferous = marked by noisy and vehement outcry