This is from another forum I visit...thought I would share..I never used Monster cable..and now for SURE never will this is BS.
A Monster law suit Monster Cable Driving Mini Golf Place Out of Business?
Monster Mini Golf
While we were all being led to believe that Monster Cable is NOT about suing small unrelated companies sharing the "Monster" name (in a recent response letter from Noel Lee), they were busy firing up litigation against a Mini Golf franchise called Monster Mini Golf. Giant Monster Cable has already burdened Monster Mini Golf with nearly $100k in legal fees and it looks like there is no end in sight. This personally touches home to me as one of their mini golf facilities happens to be in my neck of the woods in New Port Richey, Florida. I can't fathom the idea that a cable company would contend that a mini-golf operator is infringing its trademarks on a line of audio and video cables, and would go so far as to bring this kind of frankly silly litigation as a result.
Christina Vitagliano, Founder of Monster Mini Golf, was kind enough to share the details of her Monster Cable fiasco with me and granted us permission to post this on the Audioholics website. Ms. Vitagliano has been grateful for the support of the Audioholics community, and we all wish her the best.
Monster's Law Firm Contact info is:
Robert W. Payne, Esquire
Post Office Box 3140
1 Lower Ragsdale Drive
Building 1, Suite 130
Monterey, CA 93942-3140
Telephone: (831) 649-8800
rpayne@lgpatlaw.com
Monster Cable Lawsuit Reality
We are about to come to the tail end (maybe) of this ridiculous Monster Cable VS: Monster Mini Golf attack. We are now about $95K into legal fees and are meeting on Wednesday Morning for what the attorney's refer to as Mediation. Yet another insanely expensive attempt to get us to spend more $$ and back down as to what is rightfully ours says Vitagliano.
The mediation is taking place at:
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe llp
405 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA
at 8:30am
"Patrick and I are flying in tomorrow (Tuesday) and will arrive in San Francisco at approx 11am for our Mediation meeting on Wednesday (November 5th)."
"This day alone is going to run us approx $10K in fees and travel expenses!! And to top it all off Mr Lee has chosen not to attend!! You would think after all he has tried to do and is still trying to do, he would have the decency to attend."
"This is the request that was sent to his attorney: (and he still declined)"
Monster Mini Golf's ultimate decision makers, says Vitagliano, at great expense and inconvenience, we will be traveling here from Rhode Island to be present at the upcoming mediation, and so we request that Monster Cable's ultimate decision maker, Noel Lee, attend as well. As you know, Local Rule 16-271 specifies that a corporation satisfies its attendance requirement if represented by a person who has the authority to settle "to the greatest extent possible."
And Check this out!!!
This is what was emailed to us a few days ago. This is what this man thinks he deserves! Keep in mind Patrick and I created this business with our hands and at one point gave up our home to make this work and grow. There are not any words left to describe this man says Vitagliano.
Monster Cable is willing to settle this matter according to the following terms which they believe are reasonable for us:
1. Monster Cable would grant a license to Monster Mini Golf LLC (and Monster Entertainment LLC if appropriate) to use the mark MONSTER MINI GOLF for the uses set forth in the trademark applications, including the right to sublicense its franchisees. Your clients would immediately discontinue usage of any other "Monster" mark and not resume other uses. The license would be to use the mark in stylized form in the manner of the registration application.
2. Monster Mini Golf/Monster Entertainment would pay a paid-up, one time royalty for the use of the "Monster" mark of 5% of their gross revenues to date, which you have represented to be $1,600,000. I.e., the paid up license for your clients and all current franchisees would be $80,000. There would be no requirement to include the revenues of your Sacramento franchisee or other franchisees into this calculation.
3. However, as usage of the "Monster" mark grows there would be an additional royalty component. For each new franchisee beyond those currently existing, Monster Mini Golf/Monster Entertainment would pay a one-time $3,000 royalty, within 60 days of execution of the franchise agreement. Thus, if your client adds 4 new franchisees over the next 2 years, it would pay $12,000 over the next two years.
4. All parties, including all franchisees of defendants, would be included in the mutual release. There would be the usual and ordinary reporting requirements and warranties in the agreement.
We believe this arrangement is fair. We believe a large part of the success of the company has come from usage of the Monster trademark. The figures we have cited above should represent a reasonable portion of the profits earned by the corporate entities derived from use of that mark.
We obviously declined, said Vitagliano. This really is the true meaning of Corporate Bully!! I'd greatly appreciate it if you could post this information on your website to help get the word out. I know it is not your area but the one thing that we have heard is that if he (Noel Lee) gets enough Bad Publicity, he actually backs down. Although, I am not sure I believe that.
Monster Cable asserts a universal monopoly on the word "Monster" in relation to any product or service regardless of its nature and is described as a "Trademark Bully" in multiple intellectual property publications.
I recall Noel Lee's recent quotes from his response letter originally posted on Audioholics where he objected to this characterization, and in April 2008 issued (through Counsel) a press release in which he said that Monster Cable had no pending trademark infringement suits (an UNTRUE statement when made, and then again when Monster Cable sued "Monster Mini Golf" in May of 2008), that he recognizes that he (or Monster Cable) does "NOT own the word Monster", and that we would NEVER try to harm a company whose focus was on "Products for Children".
Yet that is exactly what Monster Mini Golf and the family business it franchises are. Basically they are attempting to bankrupt my company both with legal fees and royalty fees for their alleged Trademark rights which they think should extend beyond their business model despite they don't publicly state so.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you,
Christina Vitagliano
Founder
Monster Mini Golf
401-454-8100
cell: 401-489-5660
Closing Thoughts
We respect Christina and Patrick's conviction to fight this frivolous lawsuit and wish them the best of luck. As a fellow Audioholic, I felt it my civic duty to report another almost countless example of corporate bully tactics against yet another family owned company that until they got served, didn't even know anything about the Monster Cable name let alone their Trademark litigation tactics. In this day and age, with such a fragile economy, it saddens us to see a corporate giant like Monster Cable drain the resources of small businesses in their efforts to line their pocketbooks and claim broad trademark rights to a word in Webster's Dictionary called "Monster". In the words of the ever so brilliant Bono, I say to them "don't let the bastards grind you down!".
anyone who knows anything about A/V gave up on the monster cable hype years ago...
avsforum.com
learn yourself...
I've been boycotting monster cable my whole life, nothing new here :)
Monster Cable is the Snake Oil of the 21st Century.
+1 all around.
Here is a GREAT response to a patent infringement brought by Monster claiming intellectual property rights in the "crimp" style of connectors. The company they chose to send the threat to happened to be owned by a former IP lawyer who had a wonderful response:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back
It closes:
quote:
I have seen Monster Cable take untenable IP positions in various different scenarios in the past, and am generally familiar with what seems to be Monster Cable's modus operandi in these matters. I therefore think that it is important that, before closing, I make you aware of a few points.
After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues. My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle. In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table. I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word. If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds. As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.
I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands. Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to (1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind. If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims--or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims--from start to finish. Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.
I will also point out to you that if you do choose to undertake litigation, your "upside" is tremendously limited. If you somehow managed, despite the formidable obstacles in your way, to obtain a finding of infringement, and if you were successful at recovering a large licensing fee--say, ten cents per connector--as the measure of damages, your recovery to date would not reach four figures. On the downside, I will advance defenses which, if successful, will substantially undermine your future efforts to use these patents and marks to threaten others with these types of actions; as you are of course aware, it is easier today for your competitors to use collateral estoppel offensively than it ever has been before. Also, there is little doubt that making baseless claims of trade dress infringement and design patent infringement is an improper business tactic, which can give rise to unfair competition claims, and for a company of Monster's size, potential antitrust violations with treble damages and attorneys' fees.
I look forward to receiving the information requested and will review it promptly as soon as it is received.
Sincerely
X
i got my 2x HDMI 1.3b cables for 9.99 bucks, shipped.
monster cables prove there is a sucker born every minute.
here you go for real sound improvement...
http://www.audio-consulting.ch/Woodlenses.htm (//%22http://www.audio-consulting.ch/Woodlenses.htm%22)
and for true audiophile cables... (//%22http://www.stealthaudiocables.com/products/indra/indra.html%22)
[:P]
Never ever EVER buy Monster cables. Or cables in any bricks and mortar store. Even Wal-Mart is overpriced. Go online, you'll get 'em for a steal.
quote:
Originally posted by wordherder
Never ever EVER buy Monster cables. Or cables in any bricks and mortar store. Even Wal-Mart is overpriced. Go online, you'll get 'em for a steal.
+1
www.monoprice.com for all your cable needs.
quote:
Originally posted by charky
quote:
Originally posted by wordherder
Never ever EVER buy Monster cables. Or cables in any bricks and mortar store. Even Wal-Mart is overpriced. Go online, you'll get 'em for a steal.
+1
www.monoprice.com for all your cable needs.
EXACTLY! I have told everyone about monoprice. You can order it on a monday and have it on wed or thurs at the latest. They usually ship same day priority.
+1 monoprice happy customer.
I just learned about monprice recently and love their prices, I use them for network cable purchases for work.
When I bought our HDTV a couple of years ago, the guy at Circuit City asked if I was getting the HD box from Cox, and when I said yes, he immediately said, "Oh good, then you need to come in and get a Monster Cable HDMI cable". My wife asked what does that do and I told her that it gives you the best picture and sound quality from the box to the TV. She asked the guy how much, and then when she recovered from the price, they wanted $130.00, I told her I can get the same thing for $30.00 delivered from one of my vendors at work, she told the guy no thanks.
im a monoprice fan but i also use bluejeanscable.com esp for custom lngths...
I'm guessing the monster cable thing is a vendor scam. They must allow for restricted vendors and massive ("monster" if you will) profit margins for the vendors. Why else would they attempt to sell those instead of equal products for 25% the cost?
Several years back I decided to check out the Monster cable vs the standard AV cable that came with most all electronic equipment.
I cut both cable end's of and compaired the two.
I could not tell the difference between them. The copper center conductors looked identicle and the silver in-laid braid also looked the same. And the shielded dielectric I could not see any difference. The thick nice to the touch covering on the Monster cable was the only thing that I could see was that much different and also the pleasing to the eye Gold(plated)RCA ends. Now if that plus the bragging right about how you have got Monster cables hooked up to your surround sound system is what it takes to make you spend up to three to four times the necessary amount of money, Then by all means knock yourself out.
Personaly my eyes and ears are to old to tell the difference.
Also, Do they own Monster Drinks ?
That would be a sweet lawsuit if they didnt.
Oh snap. What about Monster.com
How bout Monster Trucks or anything else with the name Monster. I say roll out the attorney's with the burnt by hot coffee mentality and sue their ash [:D]
Any opinions on the tactic that this company is using to basically drain a smaller company with nothing to do with their industry dry until they settle out of court? I bet they have done this a few times and gotten quite a bit of free cash out of settling...
Standard objection to the burnt coffee case as frivolous suit:
McDonald's kept their coffee far hotter than anywhere else. Normal operating temperature the woman would have suffered 2nd degree burns. McDonald's temperature she suffered 3rd degree burns in 4 seconds. It was held negligent to keep coffee that hot (far too hot to actually drink) and serve it in paper cups to people in cars.
- She was not the driver.
- The car was stopped when the spill occurred.
- She had 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body (the 6% you REALLY don't want such burns on)
- She sued for $20,000 in medical damages (8 days of hospitalization, skin grafts, and rehab, McDonalds refused
- McDonald's had 700 claims in the previous 10 years for the same thing and took no remedial actions
- Home coffee is 130, Starbucks is at 150, McDonalds was serving coffee at 190F.
- 155F is "drinkable," hotter than that and you will be burned (hence, no point in 190F coffee)
- McDonald's admitted that it knew of the problem and did not remedy it. They admitted that most people will drink coffee as soon as they are handed it. They admitted most people were not aware 3rd degree burns were a risk of McDonald's Coffee.
- She was awarded $160,000 for medical damages, lost wages, and pain and suffering. This amount is reduced by 20%, her degree of personal negligence.
- McDonald's was also hit with a punitive award that was about 1/3 of one days nation wide coffee sales ($500,000).
- McDonald's coffee is now served at 158F.
Like the ruling or not, it shouldn't be the poster boy for frivolous suits.
I thought exactly what you did, until I read the rest of the facts.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Standard objection to the burnt coffee case as frivolous suit:
McDonald's kept their coffee far hotter than anywhere else. Normal operating temperature the woman would have suffered 2nd degree burns. McDonald's temperature she suffered 3rd degree burns in 4 seconds. It was held negligent to keep coffee that hot (far too hot to actually drink) and serve it in paper cups to people in cars.
- She was not the driver.
- The car was stopped when the spill occurred.
- She had 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body (the 6% you REALLY don't want such burns on)
- She sued for $20,000 in medical damages (8 days of hospitalization, skin grafts, and rehab, McDonalds refused
- McDonald's had 700 claims in the previous 10 years for the same thing and took no remedial actions
- Home coffee is 130, Starbucks is at 150, McDonalds was serving coffee at 190F.
- 155F is "drinkable," hotter than that and you will be burned (hence, no point in 190F coffee)
- McDonald's admitted that it knew of the problem and did not remedy it. They admitted that most people will drink coffee as soon as they are handed it. They admitted most people were not aware 3rd degree burns were a risk of McDonald's Coffee.
- She was awarded $160,000 for medical damages, lost wages, and pain and suffering. This amount is reduced by 20%, her degree of personal negligence.
- McDonald's was also hit with a punitive award that was about 1/3 of one days nation wide coffee sales ($500,000).
- McDonald's coffee is now served at 158F.
Like the ruling or not, it shouldn't be the poster boy for frivolous suits.
I thought exactly what you did, until I read the rest of the facts.
CF, in my opinion it was an absolutely frivolous products liability lawsuit. The coffee was "unreasonably dangerous" because the warning that the product (coffee) was hot was not large enough? Bottom line. Stella put a cup of hot coffee between her knees, in a vehicle (stopped or not), and got burned. Gee, who would expect that to happen? Also, another reason why this case was so popular for the tort reformers was the excessive punitive damages the jury awarded.
Anytime a company changes or makes an improvement to a product, they leave themselves wide open to lawsuits from consumers of the previous edition of the product. No wonder we can't get anything fixed.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Stella put a cup of hot coffee between her knees, in a vehicle (stopped or not), and got burned. Gee, who would expect that to happen?
Most people wouldn't expect 3rd degree burns from a food/drink product. We've all eaten things that burned our mouth. Those burns haven't left permanent injury. It's reasonable to expect a product served to you for immediate consumption to not permanently harm you.
+1 on Nathan.
It was a combination of things Guido. The warning label was a minimal part of the case, it was an unreasonably dangerous product with the inadequate label being the last line of defense. After they admitted most people would consume it right away and then admitted that anything over 155F was unnecessarily dangerous it was pretty much res ipsa loquitur.
I've seen mock jury trials on this case and generally the jury comes back with the same verdict but higher proportion of liability for the lady. Personally, I would have assigned her 33% fault for spilling the coffee... but if it was regular coffee it would not have entailed 3 surgeries and 8 days in the hospital. So it makes sense to me.
Hell, I spilled coffee on myself today with nothing more than embarrassment. I would have been very surprised if I spent the rest of the year in the hospital and had 3rd degree burns on my genitals.