Monster Cable's Latest Victim
Dec
3
Written by:
Jeremy Glowacki
12/3/2008 5:23 AM
It's the not-so-secret dirty little secret in our industry. Monster
Cable views trademark infringement litigation
as a profit center for bullying small companies out of business. What we're talking about are not
simple patent infringement cases, though Monster has taken on those as
well (see www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/index.htm for one example). Worse
than that are the hundreds of examples like the one I
learned about today involving the Rhode Island-based owner of the
Monster MiniGolf franchise. Essentially, Monster Cable is making a
mockery of the legal system by suing mom-and-pop businesses all over the country for simply have the word “Monster” in their company name. Until
now, I’ve chosen to take the high road on this story, but this
latest example is so despicable and deplorable, that I had to put it out
there.
Please read this sad tale posted on ebay for yourself, and let me
know what you think.
4 comment(s) so far...
Monster Cable's Latest Victim
Just finished reading your article on Monster Cable's Mr. Noel Lee. Let's face it when you sell a product that has absolutly no merit you need to find something to do. I understand that Mr. Lee's problem stems from the fact that he once attempted to call his [deleted] "Monster" but his girlfriend at the time laughed at that. Ever so smitten he vowed to get even.
By audiomikesbuy@comcast.net on
12/5/2008 3:00 AM
|
Monster Cable's Latest Victim
jeez, what a greedy jerk...good concerts at CEDIA have been cool, but if this is true as it appears, Mr. Lee is not
By jgearma@verizon.net on
12/5/2008 9:40 AM
|
Monster Cable's Latest Victim
I wonder if they made any attempts to file suit against the Monster Energy drink. I am certain that they can give Monster Cable a run for its money. For that matter so could channel thirteen, provided that Cookie MONSTER is still on the air.
By davidnleach@yahoo.com on
12/9/2008 1:14 AM
|
Monster Cable's Latest Victim
FYI, the auction in this article was removed because it violated ebay's ToS sine there was nothing actually being sold. There are two new ones that conform to ebay's rules.
This one is "But-it-now":
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250337251068
and this one is traditional auction style:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250336911645
By jbrown@audioadvisors.com on
12/4/2008 7:12 AM
|