Everybody boycott Monster Cable!

[derekwwww]

I encourage everyone to stop buying moster cable products. They are sueing other companies for the reason of them having the word 'monster' in their company name. How stupid is that. Such as: discovery channel for 'monster garage', the band monster magnet, plus many more. Check out:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?q...roducts&page=1

Maybe I should start a company with a commonly used word then sue anyone else using the word????

i know i wont be buying any monster cable

[derekwwww]

here is a URL for protest against moster cable:

http://www.stopthemonster.com/

[jaguars_fan]

I have no problem with that! I have been using other cables for years just so I didn't have to give them any of my money! I am still passing the word!

[Resident Loser]

...Boris Karloff's role in "Frankenstein( The Monster) is in jeopardy as is Mary W. Shelly's book of the same title...and then there is "Monsters Inc." and every DJ who has ever referred to something as a "monster hit" while on air...Although since "Monster Mash" predates the company's existence by a few decades they have some "set" to attempt court action...and then there is Bigfoot, the Undertaker and all the Monster Trucks...

Probably all for the press quotient...there is only one thing worse than being talked about...and that is not being talked about...ooops! that was one of Wilde's...

jimHJJ(...and after all it's only wire...)

[jaguars_fan]

Let's not forget Cookie Monster from Sesame Street could be in danger of becoming extinct in the wake of Monster's (can I write their name without the registered trademark symbol and their expressed permission?) lawsuits. And what about Monster.com? Sureley there's an infringement if ever there was one!

[Rycher]

Noel Lee of Monster Cable has already replied to the accusations of them sueing other companies that use the word "Monster". He says it is simply not true. Monster is NOT sueing anyone. These are all just rumors. His response can be read somewhere on this forum, as well as in several other forums. Again, Monster Cable has not sued, or has no intentions of sueing anyone. They are all just rumors.

[Resident Loser]

...if you visit the site ref'd to in the original post, you'll see the words defendent and plaintiff...now I ain't claimin' to be no legal-eagle, but dem sounds like adversarial terms where I come from...even if it's only some sort of objection to trademark/copyright cr@pola...

jimHJJ(...where is Phil Tower when you actually need him...)

[woodman]

Noel Lee of Monster Cable has already replied to the accusations of them sueing other companies that use the word "Monster". He says it is simply not true. Monster is NOT sueing anyone. These are all just rumors. His response can be read somewhere on this forum, as well as in several other forums. Again, Monster Cable has not sued, or has no intentions of sueing anyone. They are all just rumors.

So you think that his denial is all that's needed to dispel all of those horrid rumours? The day that I would believe anything that Mr. Lee says, is the very same day that I'd sit myself down to write a letter to dear old Santa Claus! The man is sorely lacking in ethics, scruples, and morals, IMO.

[Pat D]

I encourage everyone to stop buying moster cable products. They are sueing other companies for the reason of them having the word 'monster' in their company name. How stupid is that. Such as: discovery channel for 'monster garage', the band monster magnet, plus many more. Check out:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?q...roducts&page=1

Maybe I should start a company with a commonly used word then sue anyone else using the word????

i know i wont be buying any monster cable

I've been boycotting all the exotic cable manufacturers! I don't need that sort of audio jewellery. Monster, Kimber, Nordost, etc.

[squeegy200]

I've been boycotting all the exotic cable manufacturers! I don't need that sort of audio jewellery. Monster, Kimber, Nordost, etc.

Same here, Made my own speaker cables using instructions on DIY sites.

[GMichael]

Just because you have a right to do something, that does not mean that it's the right thing to do. It's not that hard to understand. No examples are given, or should be needed.

[RICKY009]

nordost cables are superb, although very expensive. their VALHALLA LINE OF I/C's + SPEAKER CABLES are among the worlds' finest. PRICE: FOR A PAIR OF VALHALLA INTERCONNECT=$4000 PER METER. SPEAKER CABLES=$5995/1.5 METER PER PAIR!! BUT IF ONE CAN AFFORD THEM, BUY THEM. OR, AT LEAST AUDITION THEM. OBVIOUSLY FOR VERY HIGH-END SYSTEMS= GREATER THAN $30,000.

[RICKY009]

i've experimented with quite a few cables and found that monster cables, although relatively inexpensive, are inferior to others. i found that "TRIBUTARY" makes a good, inexpensive cable. so does AUDIOQUEST.

[musicoverall]

I encourage everyone to stop buying moster cable products. They are sueing other companies for the reason of them having the word 'monster' in their company name. How stupid is that. Such as: discovery channel for 'monster garage', the band monster magnet, plus many more. Check out:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?q...roducts&page=1

Maybe I should start a company with a commonly used word then sue anyone else using the word????

i know i wont be buying any monster cable

I boycotted them years ago when I found their product to be crappy sounding. This is just another reason to do so.

[MARTINLOGAN123]

I encourage everyone to stop buying moster cable products. They are sueing other companies for the reason of them having the word 'monster' in their company name. How stupid is that. Such as: discovery channel for 'monster garage', the band monster magnet, plus many more. Check out:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?q...roducts&page=1

Maybe I should start a company with a commonly used word then sue anyone else using the word????

i know i wont be buying any monster cable

While you are at the library learning good punctuation, you should also pick up one of the thousands of books on laws and rights that a company has on copyrights. If Noel Lee copyrighted MONSTER than he has legal rights to not allow it's use for profit from third parties. Are you honestly telling me that you would not buy Sony, Lexus, or Rolex products if they ever sue someone for illegal use of their copyrighted names. What next? Allow them to use their patents, ideas, or even products without their consent? From the company who made the trailer you live in to the wal-mart clothes you wear, THEY ALL PROTECT THEIR NAME WITH COPYRIGHTS.
In addition, this is an audio review forum. People discuss the quality of products here, not their own petty personal agenda to bash corporate America. If you want to do that go join a Greenpeace or Adbusters. But beware, their names are copyrighted.

[jocko_nc]

Is this thread real???

Rolex, Sony, Sears, et all are unique names. I don't know about Rolex, but the two other were actual people.

Problem is, the word "monster" and its various uses have been in common language for centuries. To claim such a common thing as your own and try to use the courts to eliminate all other use thereof is lunacy. The Courts should be disbanded for even allowing such a claim. There is nothing unique or creative about using "monster" to describe something. It is a word. It commonly used as an adjective to modify a noun. Same goes for "mega", "super", and "mondo,". All are common in language. May as well include "big" and "large".

&^$% it, I am going to claim copyright on the word "cable" and sue his butt off in return. Better yet, how about "the" or "and", that ought to be a hoot. Or the comma. That idea was mine too!

When do I get my money?

jocko

[thepogue]

Send me all your Monster EQ...thats right....ever lil peice...and I'll heap it all up...call the news boys...and put the gas to her!!...yeaaaa!!....



oh..would it be cool...if I...ah.....kinda sift through the demonic stuff and...well...ya know...I mean...it's all the devils work anyways...and...well...ah...ya know


SEND ALL MONSTER PRODUCTS TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS-


ThePogue
6674 IlltakewhatIcan get Lane
Forfree, Virginia 23072

[trollgirl]

...as Monster Cable products are on my personal "no buy" list, and have been for some time. I like to keep ahead of the curve, having given up beef years ago, before anyone had heard of prions...CJD is not a nice way to go out.

Laz

[swicken]

It's okay, the cables suck anyway.

Audioquest FTW.

[SammyMac]

Hi,
I got jumbo cable instead of monster, at Jaycar electronics out here in australia. Pretty cheap cable with OFC copper, and for my other speaks i got Jamo cable, which appears to be all silver, but both sound great. I think there is better cable out there than Monster, maybe even the Jamo cable i have

[MARTINLOGAN123]

Is this thread real???

Rolex, Sony, Sears, et all are unique names. I don't know about Rolex, but the two other were actual people.

Problem is, the word "monster" and its various uses have been in common language for centuries. To claim such a common thing as your own and try to use the courts to eliminate all other use thereof is lunacy. The Courts should be disbanded for even allowing such a claim. There is nothing unique or creative about using "monster" to describe something. It is a word. It commonly used as an adjective to modify a noun. Same goes for "mega", "super", and "mondo,". All are common in language. May as well include "big" and "large".

&^$% it, I am going to claim copyright on the word "cable" and sue his butt off in return. Better yet, how about "the" or "and", that ought to be a hoot. Or the comma. That idea was mine too!

When do I get my money?

jocko

Yes this thread is real. If you make a profit from a third party's copyrighted name then you are breaking the law. Don't waste your breath on me telling you for a third time that it is the law. Go read a book on it. If you have an issue with it, either take it up with congress, or leave the country and go to vanuatu where copyright issues aren't enforced.
And by the way, here are some common words that are copyrighted........

Monopoly. Clue. Kleenex. Boston. Alpine. ASK. Viper. Cobra. Mustang. Avalanche. Escalade. Pilot. Odyssey. Sharp. Aqua. Borders. DONUT. Camel. Winston. Parliament. CALIFORNIA. Citizen. Eclipse. M. Liberty. Fidelity. Colonial. Titan. Halo. APPLE. Auto. Yellow. Brown. Instruments. Health. Olive Garden. The Card. Visa. Weekly. Foreign Policy. The Review. The Economist. Ebony. Black. Muslim. Dubs. Truckin. Trucks. Travel. Tourist. Typist. The Traveller. Trader. Cost. Candy. Monarch. Caesars. Wild Wild West. Surge. Elite. Premeir. Prodigy. Wizard. Jaguars. Indians. Yankees. Blue Jays. Mariners. Eagles. Cardinals. Redskins. Cowboys. Giants. And Many More.

Another point, In your quote you said the following....

"Common Language" is a copyrighted trademark of Speak Easy, which teaches languages to students in middle school.

"The Courts" is a copyrighted trademark of FOX Network, Which was a 2 season show that aired in the fall months of 97 and 98.

and "Big" already is copyrighted by Blue Sky's Ent. Which was a hit movie ( so they say) starring Tom Hanks a few years back.


You are missing the point completely.

Almost every word is copyrighted, But you have to be using the word SOLELY to make a profit for yourself or others you represent.

[MARTINLOGAN123]

Is this thread real???

.
To claim such a common thing as your own and try to use the courts to eliminate all other use thereof is lunacy. The Courts should be disbanded for even allowing such a claim. There is nothing unique or creative about using "monster" to describe something. It is a word.
jocko

And by the way. If your grudge is with the court systems and the judicial society, then take it up with them. I'm sure they will agree with you and not blow you off.

Good luck.

[jocko_nc]

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

[vinylphile]

No problem in not buying Monster Cable products. Never did like them.

Their lawsuit(s), if true, make about as much sense as Spike Lee did when he sought an injunction against Spike TV using the word "Spike" in their name. Megalomania run rampant...

[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