Everybody boycott Monster Cable!

[thepogue]

good job laddy.,...Peace Pogue

Nice try, MARTINLOGAN. You put up a nice list of common words that have been trademarked, but you miss the point completely.

Obviously, one can copyright a trademark name, image, or device. However, one cannot exclude that word from commercial use wholly unrelated to your business, especially if it is a common word used widely used in language. Here is how this will go down. "Monster" is an adjective. Here it is used to describe the unique characteristics of a cable and, now, electrical products used in home electronic applications. Therefore, a trademark is claimed on the term "Monster" to describe the same. The trademark owner does not have a trademark on the word "Monster" itself or the right to exclude all other commercial use of the word. He cannot strike it from the language. He cannot preclude others from using it to describe their unrelated products, be it a shrimp, a hamburger, or a children's book. Others must not copy his font or stylistic device in a manner that might be construed as an attempt to imply that the two are related, as though the publisher of a children's book would want to imply the book was the product of Monster Cables. The trademark exists to protect his commercial interests and nothing more.

Jeez, is the nuance here so difficult to see? Apple is a trademark name for Apple Computer. They also have a nice stylized logo of an apple. That does not mean they own the word apple. There are thousands of companies in the apple business who no doubt use the work apple in their business names, trademarked or otherwise. There may even be a trademarked variety of apple known as a monster apple. There is no conflict, however, they are not in the computer business and cannot be reasonably considered passing themselves off as related to Apple Computer. Apple computer cannot strike the word "apple" from the language nor deny that it is the name of a fruit.

Bottom line, this whole deal is heavyhanded and wrong. I agree with those who say the actions of this company are an embarrassment to free enterprise. I bet the lawyers who brought the complaints know as much and realize they would lose these cases. What the heck, they are getting paid. Their hope is to shake out some suckers who don't want to match legal fees, flex their muscles, and attempt to broaden their brand name. We can argue this here to no conclusion. The proof will come when these idiots lose one or more of these complaints. They may ultimately pay. I think we have an individual who has mucho money, a huge ego, and little brains.

Take another look at your books and see the past the black and white.

jocko

[hermanv]

Not far from my home is a place called "The Peter Rabbit Chocolate Factory". They got sued by Beatrix Potter the author of Peter Rabbit for copyright infringement.

The court said "...there is no relation between Peter Rabbit books and Peter Rabbit chocolate, the consumer is unlikely to be confused..." and threw out the suit.

Of course there is no real guarantee that any given judge has the necessary mental accumen to spot the difference.