Monster Boycott
05-03-2005, 10:49 PM
#61
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mikes2k, I agree. No one, company, group, or government should be able to claim ownership of a common noun. Colors too. I can't believe UPS has exclusive use of a specific brown, Orange - the European wireless company - is trying to get an orange, and Nextel with a yellow all claim shades of colors as their own. I thought it used to be that you had to invent something to own it, not just bitch enough to the courts until you get your way.
05-04-2005, 04:37 AM
#62
Registered User
It gets a little more complicated than just a shade (which in and of itself cannot be copyrighted). The courts are also required to consider the context in which that color appears. For example, I'm free to use the "UPS Brown" color in the company logo displayed on my delivery truck... but if I paint the entire truck that same color, then it becomes an issue.
It all comes down to branding... is there potential for consumer confusion. This is obviously open to interpretation, which is why we must rely on a judge's good sense, but often enough (such as me simply using the color in a logo) it's pretty straightforward.
This lawsuit is likely going to take years to play out in court, but I'll be curious to see the result. No judge in his right mind would ever rule that there will be branding confusion between 99.9% of the products listed in their lawsuit, and Monster just looks like a bunch of assholes for doing this. To keep your rights towards a copyright, you MUST enter litigation when there is potential for branding confusion... since that is hardly the case for almost every item they've listed, the lawsuit is unnecessary if their intent is to preserve that right.
I notice Monster.com still lists a tiny link at the bottom of their page to Monster Cables... if you notice, though, it's linked as an advertisement. I'm led to believe Monster Cable worked out this deal with Monster.com simply because people were getting confused looking for one and finding the other, not out of a need. It's not like you notice it unless you REALLY look for it.
It all comes down to branding... is there potential for consumer confusion. This is obviously open to interpretation, which is why we must rely on a judge's good sense, but often enough (such as me simply using the color in a logo) it's pretty straightforward.
This lawsuit is likely going to take years to play out in court, but I'll be curious to see the result. No judge in his right mind would ever rule that there will be branding confusion between 99.9% of the products listed in their lawsuit, and Monster just looks like a bunch of assholes for doing this. To keep your rights towards a copyright, you MUST enter litigation when there is potential for branding confusion... since that is hardly the case for almost every item they've listed, the lawsuit is unnecessary if their intent is to preserve that right.
I notice Monster.com still lists a tiny link at the bottom of their page to Monster Cables... if you notice, though, it's linked as an advertisement. I'm led to believe Monster Cable worked out this deal with Monster.com simply because people were getting confused looking for one and finding the other, not out of a need. It's not like you notice it unless you REALLY look for it.
05-04-2005, 05:49 AM
#63
Registered User
It all comes down to branding... is there potential for consumer confusion. This is obviously open to interpretation, which is why we must rely on a judge's good sense....
05-04-2005, 10:23 AM
#64
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MacGyver,May 4 2005, 05:37 AM
I notice Monster.com still lists a tiny link at the bottom of their page to Monster Cables... if you notice, though, it's linked as an advertisement. I'm led to believe Monster Cable worked out this deal with Monster.com simply because people were getting confused looking for one and finding the other, not out of a need. It's not like you notice it unless you REALLY look for it.
While I agree with the principles (sanity?) of your other statements this, unfortunately, is not how the courts are presently interpreting the law. A company at the moment can trademark a color. As far as winning a suit against a competitor over that trademark, that's a whole other story.
05-05-2005, 09:06 AM
#66
Registered User
Originally Posted by mikes2k,May 5 2005, 09:27 AM
Not much faith in our justice system either huh? 
who me?
nope.
whenever power, money, ambition, desire, lust, etc. are involved... i have little faith in humanity in general i'm afraid...
"Radix malorum est cupiditas." (Avarice is the root of evil.)
We have a justice system?? 
05-05-2005, 03:29 PM
#68
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This comes down to noone buys their shi+ and they are losing tons of money each year, so they are suing anything that moves to get their A$$ out of a crack. I never liked their over priced rebranded crap in the first place. I would sooner use haywire wrapped in duct tape than buy their junk. I hope they go down in a giant swirl of crap.
05-05-2005, 07:29 PM
#69
Registered User
I would sooner use haywire wrapped in duct tape than buy their junk.
SRPS (Sucks Rusted Pig Scrotum) and 'i'd rather listen to my kids beat on pots and pans w/ a wooden spoon than listen to ....'
ok. the 2nd one was mine, but i still like it.