Monster Energy Drink Backs Down Due To Public Pressure; Vermonster Beer Lives On

from the but-what-about-the-others? dept

You may recall that we recently wrote about the effort by Hansen's drink company to stop a small Vermont brewery from offering Vermonster Beer, claiming that it infringed on the trademark they held for Monster Energy Drink (because any moron would confuse beer with an energy drink). That situation got a ton of publicity (all of it negative towards Monster Energy Drink and Hansens), and Brendan alerts us to the news that it looks like Hansen's has backed down. And the guy behind the Rock Art Brewery (maker of Vermonster) has put up an open letter with the timeline of events (pdf) -- thanking everyone for creating the public pressure that got Hansens to back down.

Of course, it looks like Hansens only backed down in this one instance. Yet, as we noted, Hansens appears to have contracted with notorious abuser of the trademark system, Continental Enterprises, who likes to send cease-and-desist letters to anyone even mentioning a trademark name. Just recently, beyond the whole Vermonster situation, Hanses -- via CE -- has gone after a beverage review site (which had a negative review of Monster Energy Drink) and an actor who was a movie monster.

Will Hansens call off Continental Enterprises from its abusive practices?

It's great that public pressure got the company to back down on Vermonster beer, but those other situations didn't get nearly as much attention.

Matt Nadeau, from the Rock Art Brewery is asking how we can continue to use the community that came together to help him to do more to protect other small businesses from the same thing. As a starting point, why not point them to these other abuses by Hansens and CE and get Hansens to back down? After that, it would be great to get people to recognize that we need serious trademark law reform that brings trademark law back to its intended purpose: acting as a consumer protection technique against appropriation and confusion, rather than what many believe it's become: a property right and a monopoly.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Monster Madness: Monster Energy Drink's Hired Trademark Trolls Go After Movie Monster

from the this-is-getting-insane dept

We've recently covered how beverage company Hansen's hired a company called Continental Enterprises, who has a long history of abusing trademark law for profit (i.e., getting big companies to allow it to send threat letters to anyone who in any way uses a mark, even if it's clearly not a violation of trademark), and because of that, a small Vermont brewery and a beverage review website found themselves on the receiving end of legal threats.

Apparently, the monster madness doesn't stop there. Andrew points us to the news that that Continental Enterprises, on behalf of Hansen's and Monster Energy Drink has also threatened a working actor who was in a monster movie a few years ago, and had a photo taken of himself in costume holding a Monster Energy Drink. This amusing joke photo is apparently too much for the fine folks at Continental Enterprises, who insist it's "advertising and/or selling products that are confusingly similar to Monster Energy Drink" and demand that he cease and desist.

At what point does Hansens and Monster Energy Drink realize that in this deal to outsource trademark bullying to Continental Enterprises, they've done significantly more harm to their own brands?

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Monster Energy Drink Hires Trademark Bully To Go After Beverage Review Site

from the just-can't-get-enough dept

Just a couple weeks ago, we wrote about the ridiculous story of Monster Energy Drink trying to stop a small Vermont brewery from offering Vermonster beer, claiming trademark infringement. The whole thing seemed ridiculous, but now we have a clue as to what's going on. Against Monopoly alerts us to yet another, but even more questionable trademark complaint by Monster Energy Drink -- this time against a beverage review site. Writing a review of a product is not trademark infringement. However, the Against Monopoly writeup focused on the organization "representing" Monster Energy Drink and its parent company (Hansen's) -- and we immediately recognized the name from an earlier story. Continental Enterprises is a firm that gets big brands to give it the right to "represent" them in trademark issues -- and then goes hunting for anything that it can claim is trademark infringement, even if the use is clearly not infringing (such as a review site). According to reports, CE works (at least in part) on a commission basis -- where it gets a cut of whatever money it squeezes out of others. So it has little incentive to make sure the infringement is real. It just wants to get as much money as possible. I have no idea if the Vermonster dispute also involves Continental Enterprises, but going after a beverage review site is pretty ridiculous. This can't be doing good things for the Monster Energy Drink brand.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A Monstrous Trademark Dispute That Has Nothing To Do With Monster Cable

from the monster-mash dept

We've seen so many stories about trademark disputes involving Monster Cable that, as soon as I saw that Jonathan had submitted a story about a trademark dispute over the word "monster," I assumed it must involve them. But... nope. No such luck. This particular dispute involves Monster Energy Drink complaining about the attempted national trademark on Vermonster beer, a play on the fact that the beer is from Vermont. The guy behind Vermonster called up the energy drink company's lawyer, and said there shouldn't be a problem since he wasn't going into the energy drink business, and as long as MED stayed out of the beer business, there wouldn't be an issue. But the lawyers for Monster Energy Drink said no deal. The Vermonster guy says he's going to fight it, even if it costs a bunch of money to take on MED, saying that it's a question of principles. Maybe we can have Monster Cable try to arbitrate a solution...

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Shocker: Monster Cable Still Up To Its Old Tricks

from the speaks-to-credibility-your-honor dept

Right after the first of the year, it looked like Monster Cable might be taking a new tack in its trademark "strategy", after it dropped a lawsuit against a company called Monster Mini-Golf. Monster Cable has a long history of suing lots of business -- no matter what line of work they're in -- that use the word monster in their name, but given the backlash against it and its subsequent apology in the mini-golf case, it seemed that maybe, just maybe it was changing its ways. That was false hope, apparently, as it's now going after a company called Monster Transmission (via Engadget). The cable company apparently claims it "has no issue" with the transmission company, but that's news to one of its owners. Monster Cable also claims the suit was filed before its backdown in the Monster Mini-Golf case, as if that's supposed to make it okay. But if the company really "has no issue" -- why not just withdraw the suit?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Monster Mini Golf Using eBay To Fight Monster Cable's Trademark Lawsuit

from the good-for-them dept

Monster Cable is famously litigious over its trademark -- suing just about anyone who uses the name "Monster" as a part of their corporate offering. Most of these lawsuits are bogus -- as trademark only covers the specific areas of business you're in, and doesn't give you complete control over the name. Thus, if you make a salt lick for deer called Monster Deer Block, you shouldn't have to worry about a lawsuit from Monster Cable... but you'd still get one, as pretty much everyone from the TV show Monster Garage to the Boston Red Sox (for the "Monster seats" on top of the "Green Monster" wall in left field) have found out.

Earlier this year, the company went after a small mini-golf operation in California called Monster Mini Golf, which we doubted anyone would confuse with the cable makers. Apparently, that wasn't the only Monster Mini Golf that Monster's lawyers were busy hassling. Chris Collett alerts us to the fact that a Rhode Island based Monster Mini Golf is also facing a lawsuit, and asking for help. But, there's an interesting twist here. The company is pleading it's case on eBay, and asking people to contribute to its defense fund via eBay. I'm not sure if this goes against eBay's terms of service, though I hope it doesn't. (Update: It did go against eBay's ToS, so it was taken down -- but the company has put up a new auction for a coupon at Monster Mini Golf which will serve the same purpose):

BUT...one man is destined to crush what we have built. He is the founder of Monster Cable Inc. (a company that makes Audio cables) and he's suing us for "Trademark Infringement".

In a nutshell, trademark infringement is based solely on "Likelihood of Confusion", or essentially, "could the average consumer be confused between the two?". The answer is no, as decided by the Patent and Trademark Office when they granted our trademarks, but Monster Cable Inc filed an opposition against that decision, and sued us.

To this day, this one man has opposed approx 400 companies...and it doesn't look like he EVER intends to stop. This is the true meaning of Corporate Bully.

Their tactic is to run the smaller companies out of money, and force them into a settlement where they surrender their name to Monster Cable Inc, who then licenses it back to them for a fee. Yes, so then we would be paying him for a concept and business we created and have worked very hard for! It is essentially extortion, but sadly, it is cheaper than going to trial, which can be crippling to small businesses like ours.

Unlike the 414 companies he has forced into settlement by bleeding them dry.... we have decided to continue on and fight the good fight. We have chosen to stand up for anyone who has ever been bullied, picked on, abused, or otherwise forced into an unfair or unjust situation by a bigger, stronger, (or in this case, richer) opponent.

Each small business that was forced to sign over their name is one more brick in the massive Monster Cable Inc wall, held together by the blood of those crushed beneath their corporate wheels. It is very very sad.

So far our legal fees are well over $100,000. (And counting) and will likely reach $250,000 when all is said and done. No wonder why 400 companies have waived the white flag!! 250K is the cost of "Winning"!! We need your help, we cannot afford to do it alone. Wondering if this is real or not...just google Monster Mini Golf and Cable. Or visit audioholics web site and you will also read about many other cases there as well.

What we are selling is a "Piece" of our legal defense and a small slice of Justice to you for $1. Yep, just a buck....and as Sally Struthers once said, that's less than a cup of coffee! Geez...at Starbucks, it wouldn't even buy you that!

In return for your gracious purchase, you will receive a heartfelt "Thank You" from us and the knowledge that you have helped defeat a corporate bully who has been abusing the legal system for years! And, if you print your paypal receipt and take it to any Monster Mini Golf location, we'll take $2 Off a round of Mini Golf! (that's double your money back! Reg price for 18 holes is between $5.50-$7.50)

This is interesting, as I hadn't heard that Monster Cable was apparently selling the Monster name back to people it bullied. That's even more obnoxious -- and a clear abuse of trademark law. Also, it's been a while since we've seen companies using eBay auctions for PR, so maybe that's making a comeback. Either way, if you want to help stop one of the biggest trademark bullies out there, maybe try to buy a share of the legal defenses, and hope eBay doesn't take the auction down.

69 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can We Send A Moron In A Hurry With A Mini Golf Club Over To Monster Cable?

from the monster-monster-monster-monster-monster dept

The company Monster Cable has a rather infamous reputation for way too aggressively trying to enforce its trademark on the word "monster." It's sued or threatened just about everyone, including the TV show Monster Garage, a clothing store called MonsterVintage, Disney for the movie Monsters, Inc., the makers of Monster Energy drink, the Chicago Bears for having the nickname "Monsters of the Midway," and the Boston Red Sox for offering "Monster seats" on top of their famous "Green Monster" wall. The latest, sent in by reader Ben S., is that the target is now Monster Mini Golf in California.

Now, because this always comes up in the comments on posts like this, let's address the key point that people always bring up, claiming that Monster "has to" enforce its trademark or face the mark becoming generic (like aspirin, kleenex or band-aids). That's not quite true. It is true that you have to enforce the mark -- but only in cases where it's likely to confuse people or dilute your mark in the area it's designed for. A trademark does not give you total control over the word. It is not designed as a "property right" but really as a consumer protection statute, to prevent people from getting confused and believing that one company or product is sponsoring another. That's why we have the lovely "moron in a hurry" test. If a moron in a hurry wouldn't be confused, then there's no violation. And I have a hard time believing that any moron (even one in a hurry) would see a mini-golf course and assume that it's associated with the company that makes ridiculously expensive tv cables.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..