it has my attention that Monster (a crappy drink nobody should drink) is sueing a small brewery that put the word Monster in the name of their beer. what’s funny is that the Monster in that beer name is used in a really clever way. smashing Vermont and Monster together. get it? see it. clever.
trademark law is pretty specific. the “law” defines the way companies can name things so they can do business. it’s simple in fact. any word can become a “mark” as long as it is unique. you can’t TM the word the, any single letter or a generic like the word “pop” or “tricycle” although there are examples that counter this. like RED or Apple. images can be part of trademark. a red triangle, a goat or a dude tipping his hat. any of that is protectable.
the protections make sure that companies play fair. company Big cannot name their product Green-A-Beens if company small has a product already on the market called “Greena Beens”. in this case BIG is trying to intentionally confuse the buyer with a similar product name.
however, if company BIG was selling stereos they could call the Green-A-Beens because it’s an entirely different market. nobody is going to confuse food with electronics.
companies do battle with marks all the time. a classic case of trademark example is Macintosh (the computer) vs Mcintosh (a high end amplifier that nobody had ever heard of). another is Apple (the computer company) vs Apple (the Beatles). everyone knows the Beatles but pretty much nobody knows that the record company they own is called Apple.
so it has my attention that Monster (a crappy drink nobody should drink) has sent a sueing cease and desist to a small brewery that put the word Monster in the name of their beer. what’s funny is that the Monster in that beer name is used in a really clever way. smashing Vermont and Monster together. get it? see it. clever. nobody would EVER confuse this with an energy drink. and even if these two products were sold next to each other you can tell just by the shape alone that each is made by a different company.
what crappy energy drink company should do is sue over priced cable maker because those two companies are both monsters with billions of dollars to spend.
if you have a second copy/paste this to Twitter:
You suck @MonsterEnergy in fact, why not take on the guys that make cables instead. http://bit.ly/8P7xq #beer #monsterboycott. Plz RT
update:
the trademark filing is always very specific as to what the mark covers. and according this document the marks disclosed use is not even close to beer.
the thing that is absolutely laughable about this C&D is that any first year would know that there is not overlap, that the products are completely different and that you have to be a complete idiot to be confused in any way by the two products.
Keith from the Twitter writes saying “Most state commercial codes allow for “defense on obvious merits”. Minimizes costs. Commercial ‘nolo’ carve-outs EXACTLY for nuisance suits. Def. essentially “case w/o merit” & have minimal rep/disc. obligations. nobody would EVER confuse this with an energy drink. Monster has NO CASE w/ distribution conflict and product issues. They can file ‘nolo’ at every hearing.”
so there you go. IANAL but I’ve have had to deal with IP problems like this since I’ve been in business. we all get that it’s to the mark holder to protect their trademarks. it’s why you get a C&D if you don’t check the name your new product before you go to market. but please guys, don’t be ridiculous.
[…] convincing they declined. undaunted and out of guests we proceeded as planned and discussed the Vermonster vs Monster […]