Members Robin Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 Same here. Belden 8421 and Switchcraft plugs. :thu: :thu: There ya go!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted August 10, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 10, 2007 lack of useing oxygen free copper for their cables which contributes to the poorer sound qaulity they give compared to other cables of same gauge. False. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 Monster has a registered trademark for use of the mark "monster" in connection with clothing. In order to maintain this mark, they have to regularly provide the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with samples of how the mark "monster" is actually being used in the marketplace in connection with clothing. In that example, there is nothing unrelated about it. Selling Monster Cable t-shirts might be a really small portion of their business, but it is their right to protect. What about Monster.com? A employment site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 Measurements of 1/4" connection dimensions, a mix of speaker and instrument cables. Non_monster cable: .2483 .2487 .2486 .2492 .2482 .2485 Monster cable: .2487 .2483 .2482 .2487 .2490 .2483 Myth.....busted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted August 10, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 10, 2007 What about Monster.com? A employment site? That was what my second paragraph was directed to. Monster believes it has already achieved strong enough secondary meaning to prevent this type of use. I haven't done any market surveys to test whether they are right or wrong, but it is certainly a valid question and with the long term repercussions of allowing a site like Monster.com to exist unopposed, it is more or less Monster Cable's corporate obligation to enforce their rights to the extent they are able. A friend of mine from law school has been teaching trademark law since he left his firm a few years back. He recently won a very prestigious national award for legal scholarship for an article he authored that details the foundational laws on which trademark law has been built. Based on my experiences in my practice and his research (as well as that of other respected legal scholars) I have serious questions about the basic principles on which all of trademark law is constructed. However, that does not change the fact that as of today, the law is what it is and, if I were Monster's attorney, I'd tell them that no matter how much they don't want to, if they want to retain their rights, they would have to enforce them against companies like Monster.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 My PJB Bass Buddy specifically states in the manual, and I quote..."Do not use Monster brand instrument cables as they are not compatible with PJB electronics. Using a Monster cable can damage PJB jack sockets and is not covered by PJB warranty."No real idea why, but I guess it's a good thing I like Planet Waves cables... That is odd. I see (on his website) it's the only product with that warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted August 10, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 10, 2007 Monster cable sleeve = 0.248" on both ends.Monster cable tip at widest point = 0.232" on both ends.Monster cable tip at narrowest point = 0.151" on both ends.Ernie Ball cable sleeve = 0.247" on both ends.Ernie Ball cable tip at widest point = 0.242" on both ends.Ernie Ball cable tip at narrowest point = 0.154" on both ends.Carvin cable sleeve = 0.248" on both ends.Carvin cable tip at widest point = 0.233" on both ends.Carvin cable tip at narrowest point = 0.164" on both ends.Guitar Center generic cable sleeve = 0.248" on one end, 0.247" on the other end.Guitar Center generic cable tip at widest point = 0.238" on one end, 0.235" on the other end.Guitar Center generic cable tip at narrowest point = 0.162" on one end, 0.152" on the other end.End of story? Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members One Bad Monkey Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 That is odd. I see (on his website) it's the only product with that warning. I thought it was really odd too. I didn't know if it was just playing to the hype (because they offer their own PJB brand of cables) of Monster cables, or something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted August 10, 2007 CMS Author Share Posted August 10, 2007 He's not full of crap, that is the law. Honestly. They would not be in danger of abandonment for failing to enforce against unrelated products/services in every corner of the US. Especially in the case of unrelated use of an arbitrary mark, this would place an unfair and arguably impossible burden of enforcement on Monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted August 10, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 10, 2007 I have serious questions about the basic principles on which all of trademark law is constructed. However, that does not change the fact that as of today, the law is what it is and, if I were Monster's attorney, I'd tell them that no matter how much they don't want to, if they want to retain their rights, they would have to enforce them against companies like Monster.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 snip I understand the "use it or loose it" concept as you've explained it. Do they actually win? Is it truly just action to retain their rights? Monster.com is still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 (because they offer their own PJB brand of cables) that was my guess, but only do it on one product? Maybe he's doing an experiment to test the theory?? Puts the warning on one product and see if he has significantly fewer jack repairs on that model? (I'm reaching ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members One Bad Monkey Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 that was my guess, but only do it on one product? Maybe he's doing an experiment to test the theory?? Puts the warning on one product and see if he has significantly fewer jack repairs on that model? (I'm reaching ) I didn't know if it was maybe due to the fact that the Bass Buddy is so compact, maybe the hype of Monster cables being used and thus maybe hitting other things than the input jack that they just decided to toss that in first and not worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted August 10, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 10, 2007 I understand the "use it or loose it" concept as you've explained it. Do they actually win? Is it truly just action to retain their rights? Monster.com is still there. I haven't looked into any of those cases and I don't have the time right now. They certainly don't "win" against a company like Monster.com, but it isn't about winning, it is about protecting your mark. If they let Monster.com go about its business without asserting that they are diluting the strength of Monster Cable's mark, then Monster Cable's mark loses some of its strength. In a way it is like squatter's rights. If you don't tell the guy to get off your property, eventually he gains right to be there. You don't have to actually get him off your property, you just have to tell him to get off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted August 10, 2007 CMS Author Share Posted August 10, 2007 +1 Not on the abandonment part, because that's the wrong terminology, but on the general thought.See my quote from above: They either lose the trademark by abandonment or genericide, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rikshaw Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 Doesnt like monsters oversized plugs which over time make it hard to use other cables with normal size plugs. Doesnt like the sound coloring to the midrange their cables including their higher end home stereo/theater give. Doesnt like their lack of useing oxygen free copper for their cables which contributes to the poorer sound qaulity they give compared to other cables of same gauge. wtf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 They certainly don't "win" against a company like Monster.com, but it isn't about winning, it is about protecting your mark. I understand it....I just think it sounds like a waste of time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted August 10, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 10, 2007 They either lose the trademark by abandonment or genericide, correct? It's not that simple. It more of a dilution issue. The more people that use the mark "monster" in relation to other things, the less strongly the word monster is associated with its uses in relation to Monster Cable. It would not cause abandonment of the mark. Generic word status is another matter entirely and Monster Cable is unlikely to ever run into that problem. Consumers would have to start referring to cables as Monsters for that to happen. The other way would be for Monster Cable to use the mark monster in association with the sale of monsters, such as Cookie Monster. However, that generic use wouldn't cause any issue with continuing to use the mark with respect to cables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted August 10, 2007 CMS Author Share Posted August 10, 2007 I understand it....I just think it sounds like a waste of time and money. Not if it gets you in the news and the trade rags for free. Or rather, for the cost of your attorney's time, who are undoubtedly full-time employees anyway.... "There's no such thing as bad publicity" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted August 10, 2007 CMS Author Share Posted August 10, 2007 It's not that simple. It more of a dilution issue. The more people that use the mark "monster" in relation to other things, the less strongly the word monster is associated with its uses in relation to Monster Cable. It would not cause abandonment of the mark. Generic word status is another matter entirely and Monster Cable is unlikely to ever run into that problem. Consumers would have to start referring to cables as Monsters for that to happen. The other way would be for Monster Cable to use the mark monster in association with the sale of monsters, such as Cookie Monster. However, that generic use wouldn't cause any issue with continuing to use the mark with respect to cables. So the bottom line is that Monster does not "lose" their trademark, nor the right to enforce it "legitimately" (against direct infringements, for example if Fender started their own line of cables called "Fender Monster Cable" or similar). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted August 10, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 10, 2007 I understand it....I just think it sounds like a waste of time and money. Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Trademark law is built on the principle that trademark protection is necessary to prevent consumers from being confused about the source of the products and services they are buying. In practice the law loses sight of this quite often, arguably because the espoused principles are more lip service than true principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted August 10, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 10, 2007 So the bottom line is that Monster does not "lose" their trademark, nor the right to enforce it "legitimately" (against direct infringements, for example if Fender started their own line of cables called "Fender Monster Cable" or similar). Yes. Without having seen it, I assume their action against Monster.com was also legitimate. Every single use of the mark Monster in commerce reduces the rights of Monster Cable. It is best to draw the enforcement lines as far from your core practice as possible to no one can make any argument you were lax in asserting your rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 Even though the lawsuits that Monster has brought on other entities are legally acceptable, I still find it {censored}ing asinine that they do it, so I'm not going to support them. I don't care if their cables send me to Dutch Wonderland.C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted August 10, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 10, 2007 Even though the lawsuits that Monster has brought on other entities are legally acceptable, I still find it {censored}ing asinine that they do it, so I'm not going to support them. I don't care if their cables send me to Dutch Wonderland.C7 My point is not only is it legal, it is basically required. It bothers me considerably, but for me it is just one more reason I hate lawyers, not Monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted August 10, 2007 Members Share Posted August 10, 2007 Not to derail, but the new Fender cables certainly look sexy :eek: Nice. Do you have them, use them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.