48 replies to this topic

[Deerslyr]

Hansen's Beverage is putting the screws to a small Vermont Brewer because he produces a beer called "Vermonster". He was sent a Cease & Desist letter. Here is a linkto one of the articles, but frankly there are a ton out there on this subject matter. The brewer even put something up on Youtube.Boycott any Hansen's beverage and Monster Engergy Drink!!!

[Deerslyr]

Here is the Youtube Video

[CaptRon]

This shit pisses me off to no end. Stick with it Matt Nadeau.Shouldn't the attorneys of the brewing community be stepping up here to do work Pro bono?

[Deerslyr]

This shit pisses me off to no end. Stick with it Matt Nadeau.Shouldn't the attorneys of the brewing community be stepping up here to do work Pro bono?

The terms of my employment and admission to the California Bar unfortunately prohibit me... that being said, this would be a great pro-bono case for a quality law firm to undertake. The PR, especially if they win, would be phenomenal.I think I've already convinced at least 2 friends to stop drinking Monster Energy Drink, and will likely send a terse e-mail to Hansen's tonight. A couple of months ago, I was so close to investing in Hansen's. I almost wish I did so that I could sell the stock and tell them to shove it!

[Fatman]

Reminds me of this "Monster" trademark dispute:https://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-backSometimes the bully picks on the wrong guy.

[stellarbrew]

That's crap. I will definitely go out of my way to avoid any Hansen's Beverage products. They act like they fricking invented the word "monster". Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure there were beverages that used the word "monster" long before they came around.

[RommelMagic]

Yes, this is bullcrap. Reminds me how AB told Lake Placid Brewing that they were going to take the name Frostbite Ale and that Lake Placid should stop using it. Total BS. The court system should not be used as a tool for tools.

[Dave McG]

Didn't Ben and Jerry's have a giant ice cream dessert in thier shops called the Vermonster at least 10 years ago? It fed around a dozen people or so.

[Slainte]

How can anyone confuse 'Vermonster' and 'Monster?'

[Big Nake]

Yeah, I saw this on another board and it's complete BS. Shouldn't any court in the country see this as a waste of time? How is someone going to confuse a nationally-sold energy drink with a locally-sold beer? The names aren't even the same... complete nonsense.

[No Party JKor]

WTF is it with companies named "Monster"? Monster Cable has been pulling this shit for years.

[cavman]

Maybe they'll sue the Red Sox for using Green Monster all these years. BS suit

[No Party JKor]

https://usefularts.u...nster-pathetic/https://www.sfgate.c...L&type=business

According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and court records, Monster Cable has gone after other notable monsters: -- Walt Disney Co., which distributed Pixar Animation Studios' hit film "Monsters, Inc.'' -- Bally Gaming International Inc. for its Monster Slots. -- Hansen Beverage Co. for a Monster Energy drink. -- The Chicago Bears, whose nickname is "Monsters of the Midway.''

Looks like we know where their legal strategy came from. :)These retards deserve to be hit in the face with a baseball bat.

Edited by JKoravos, 14 October 2009 - 07:22 PM.

[cavman]

https://usefularts.u...nster-pathetic/https://www.sfgate.c...L&type=businessLooks like we know where their legal strategy came from. :)These retards deserve to be hit in the face with a baseball bat.

Ridiculous lawsuits all of them, they should be fined like that female attorney as taxpayers are paying for the courtcases to some degree.

[consumptionjunction]

Seriously, all these goods are completely distinguishable from each other. Unless these companies want to admit that their consumer base is completely stupid, in that they would actually accidentally plug an energy drink into their TV, or consume an alcoholic beverage as a stimulant, I see no reason to believe that these actions are necessary to preserve their trademark. I've begun to believe that these cases are brought by attorneys looking to make money off their legal "advice." It's like there's a bunch of in-house attorneys looking to keep their jobs or something. Ugh. So frustrating.If it means anything, I bet Rock Art Brewery is getting loads of great exposure because of this...

[cavman]

Seriously, all these goods are completely distinguishable from each other. Unless these companies want to admit that their consumer base is completely stupid, in that they would actually accidentally plug an energy drink into their TV, or consume an alcoholic beverage as a stimulant, I see no reason to believe that these actions are necessary to preserve their trademark. I've begun to believe that these cases are brought by attorneys looking to make money off their legal "advice." It's like there's a bunch of in-house attorneys looking to keep their jobs or something. Ugh. So frustrating.If it means anything, I bet Rock Art Brewery is getting loads of great exposure because of this...

Rock Art probably is but they also brew good beer, so good for them.

[zymot]

Everybody is overlooking an important aspect of patent,copyright and trademark law.Once you are granted a patent, copyright or trademark, you are obligated to defend it 100%. You cannot say, these guys infringed on my trademark but they are small so I will let it go. Then when a big boy (example Anheuser Busch) infringes on your trademark, you selectively decide to enforce your trademark.If Bud infringed on your trademark and you tried to enforce it, Bud's defense could be, "You did not enforce your trademark against the little Vermont brewery, so you cannot enforce it against us."They are required to send out the cease and desist orders in order to maintain a copyright or trademark. If you ever talk to a laywer, they will tell you to error on the side of covering your ass. Better to send out the cease and desist letter and be wrong than not send it out and be wrong.I am not a lawyer, but if somebody qualified can correct me, please do.zymot[edit] I wrote the above before reading the entire artical. Doesn't the brewery's lawyer say what I just wrote?

"The way the law is arranged, the holder of a trademark has to be very aggressive in defending it, even when it's overreaching," said Douglas Riley, Nadeau's trademark attorney. "If you miss a legitimate infringement, people will point out in later years that you weren't defending your properties. You can lose it if you don't defend it, so you err on the side of caution."

Edited by zymot, 14 October 2009 - 09:06 PM.

[consumptionjunction]

Everybody is overlooking an important aspect of patent,copyright and trademark law.Once you are granted a patent, copyright or trademark, you are obligated to defend it 100%. You cannot say, these guys infringed on my trademark but they are small so I will let it go. Then when a big boy (example Anheuser Busch) infringes on your trademark, you selectively decide to enforce your trademark.If Bud infringed on your trademark and you tried to enforce it, Bud's defense could be, "You did not enforce your trademark against the little Vermont brewery, so you cannot enforce it against us."They are required to send out the cease and desist orders in order to maintain a copyright or trademark. If you ever talk to a laywer, they will tell you to error on the side of covering your ass. Better to send out the cease and desist letter and be wrong than not send it out and be wrong.I am not a lawyer, but if somebody qualified can correct me, please do.zymot

I am not a lawyer (yet), but you are pretty spot on in that a trademark is not self-enforcing and that lawyers will tend to cover their asses. I still think, however, that before a trademark becomes generalized it has to be over-used with respect to a certain good or service - not with completely unrelated products. (Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on the subject.) Otherwise it seems like you are removing words from the public domain.

[cavman]

Everybody is overlooking an important aspect of patent,copyright and trademark law.Once you are granted a patent, copyright or trademark, you are obligated to defend it 100%. You cannot say, these guys infringed on my trademark but they are small so I will let it go. Then when a big boy (example Anheuser Busch) infringes on your trademark, you selectively decide to enforce your trademark.If Bud infringed on your trademark and you tried to enforce it, Bud's defense could be, "You did not enforce your trademark against the little Vermont brewery, so you cannot enforce it against us."They are required to send out the cease and desist orders in order to maintain a copyright or trademark. If you ever talk to a laywer, they will tell you to error on the side of covering your ass. Better to send out the cease and desist letter and be wrong than not send it out and be wrong.I am not a lawyer, but if somebody qualified can correct me, please do.zymot[edit] I wrote the above before reading the entire artical. Doesn't the brewery's lawyer say what I just wrote?

Yeah he says it but "monster" is hardly a word that should have been granted copyright status unless giving specifically for energy drinks in this case. If their patent says they have sole use to monster in energy drinks they have no grounds. But suing the Red Sox who have had the Green Monster for decades longer than this company has been in business is ludicrous.

[consumptionjunction]

Look how many trademarks (pending, registered, or dead) there are using "Monster": https://tess2.uspto.gov/. I'm not sure if that will link to my search, but you can do one yourself under "New User Form Search."It even looks like Monster tried to secure a trademark for Monster Malt Liquor, most likely knowing that they would release one of those disgusting concoctions in the near future. I wonder why they abandoned securing it.Also, the whole debacle goes back a little further when Rock Art Brewery tried to secure a trademark for Vermonster! This apparently led to a cease and desist letter, and all the following mess.