On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:18:23 -0500, "leonard"
wrote:
I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.
Leonard,
I have filed for a trademark on the letter "L", anyone else's use
of that letter would be a violation of a mark that would devalue my
trademark. I expect $1000 per year and 1% of your gross sales or income
for the continued use of my trademarked letter "L". Please respond with
your certified funds or discontinue the use of my letter "L". Is that
clear _eonard?
For monster to claim that they have a business interest in the area
of educational ski training videos for children and that Mr. Turners use of
the English word "monster" in his business name for that business niche
thus infringes their business interests is ludicrous. The current state of
affairs with various companies and corporations attempting to copyright
and/or trademark the use of common English names or phrases is a very
dangerous trend. Building a brand and trademark is certainly something
that needs to be protected; attempting to assert that they have the
exclusive use of a common word or phrase and actually successfully having
legal actions assert that is going to lead to severe problems as our
ability to use our language becomes more and more restricted. If all
businesses behaved as monster, using the same rationale, think of the
business names and descriptions that would either require paying extortion
to some corporate entity or denied from use: (just a few words just from
various businesses I could think of in about 60 seconds):
Home, Toys, Depot, Basement, Burgers, Office, Max, Red, Black, Best,
Circuit, Buy, City, Fry, Dollar, New York, Times, Fox, Cable, News,
Broadcasting, King, King's, White, White's, Quick
Each and everyone of the previous words is associated with a business
name and branding of some sort and thus someone like Joe's Home Repair
could ostensibly be sued by Home Depot since Joe's Home Repair is using one
of Home Depot's names in a business area in which "Home" Depot has a
presence (darned sight more logical argument BTW, than monster's ludicrous
claim regarding the educational videos market segment). IMHO, a branding
or trademark should apply *only* to the entire brand and trade mark of a
particular company.
Len
"Brian" wrote in message
...
I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).
I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.
Read on, and spread the word...
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html
What a bunch of greedy assholes.
snip
BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp
I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
done with printing.allready...
I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).
Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+