Monster Energy Drink Hires Trademark Bully To Go After Beverage Review Site
from the just-can't-get-enough dept
Just a couple weeks ago, we wrote about the ridiculous story of Monster Energy Drink trying to stop a small Vermont brewery from offering Vermonster beer, claiming trademark infringement. The whole thing seemed ridiculous, but now we have a clue as to what’s going on. Against Monopoly alerts us to yet another, but even more questionable trademark complaint by Monster Energy Drink — this time against a beverage review site. Writing a review of a product is not trademark infringement. However, the Against Monopoly writeup focused on the organization “representing” Monster Energy Drink and its parent company (Hansen’s) — and we immediately recognized the name from an earlier story. Continental Enterprises is a firm that gets big brands to give it the right to “represent” them in trademark issues — and then goes hunting for anything that it can claim is trademark infringement, even if the use is clearly not infringing (such as a review site). According to reports, CE works (at least in part) on a commission basis — where it gets a cut of whatever money it squeezes out of others. So it has little incentive to make sure the infringement is real. It just wants to get as much money as possible. I have no idea if the Vermonster dispute also involves Continental Enterprises, but going after a beverage review site is pretty ridiculous. This can’t be doing good things for the Monster Energy Drink brand.
Filed Under: monster, monster energy drink, reviews, trademark
Companies: continental enterprises, hansens, monster energy drink
Comments on “Monster Energy Drink Hires Trademark Bully To Go After Beverage Review Site”
hmm
it should be noted that 2 links deep, the explanation of how CE works, is not working, but it works here.
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/HallOfShame/CyberCops/ContinentalEnterprises/ContinentalEnterprises.shtml
Re: hmm
Great link. That site is full of interesting information. Thanks
Related link: http://consumerist.com/5383338/
Trademark and the military
I’ve always wondered about trademarks and the military. Specifically with terms like the rescue chopper the Vietnam vets called the Jolly Green Giant. Now obviously they are not talking about the canned vegetables but a big hulking machine. I don’t think I’ve ever heard about trademark dispute concerning the military or even documentaries mentioning the trademark outside the brand.
Re: Trademark and the military
Yeah, you usually don’t do a lot of arguing with the groups that literally have the missles and guns.
Kennedy tried to do that. Didn’t work out real well for him, either….
Re: Trademark and the military
“Specifically with terms like the rescue chopper the Vietnam vets called the Jolly Green Giant. Now obviously they are not talking about the canned vegetables but a big hulking machine. I don’t think I’ve ever heard about trademark dispute concerning the military or even documentaries mentioning the trademark outside the brand.”
That’s because the term for the HH-3E was coined by GIs, and did in fact refer to the Green Giant Food Co. icon. So attempts by the army (or whomever) to copy-right the name would have been foolish.
Re: Re: Trademark and the military
Actually, a somewhat related situation occurred a few years ago. During the YF-22/YF-23 competition days, several companies made games based on the available information, including the plane’s moniker, Raptor. Lockheed started threatening to sue unless companies paid for a license and there was talk of an exclusive license. The Air Force stepped in a quashed that real quick. Their stance was something to the effect of the plane is built under contract for the US Govt and, as such, NOBODY was going to be getting exclusive rights.
Re: Re: Re: Trademark and the military
Actually, the USAF eventually stepped aside, LMC secured, and continues to secure, trademarks, the right to use such trademarks was licensed to various product manufacturers, and life goes on…
Monster vs. Monster
How can we pit Monster Cable against Monster Energy Drink in some sort of trade war? I’d love to see those two eat each other.
Re: Monster vs. Monster
Cage match on PPV. I’d pay money to watch these idiotic companies take each other out.
Re: Monster vs. Monster
i cam in to say that.
Re: Monster vs. Monster
If such an event ever occurred, life in this universe would end. The universe can only endure so much legal BS directed to one specific point in space and time.
Re: Monster vs. Monster
Wouldn’t that just be frigging PERFECT! I’d buy a seat!
Cant the guy getting the suit just send a link to the legal decision making review sites fine for trademark then end all contact?
Or is there something in court where the defendant wont (cant) show and you auto win regardless of your case? (sue Pepsi for 10 $, no one from Pepsi shows, win 10$ from Pepsi?)
Re: Re:
No, you can’t sue Pepsi for $10 then win when nobody shows up. The minimum amount you can sue for is $20 🙂
Re: Re:
If you sue a company, they have to provide legal representation in court by law. Thus it is usually less costly to just concede and hand over your money. total fail.
Choices
I have always preferred Rockstar to Monster Energy Drinks anyway, but thanks for this post. When I am a consumer and I am making a choice in the beverage aisle I will remember that Hansen’s supported such an effort.
What would happen if Monster Energy Drinks sued Monster Cable. Stupid lawsuit battle begin.
Re: Zaven
What would happen if Monster Energy Drinks sued Monster Cable
I’d call it payback for all the frivolous lawsuits Monster Cable filed over its trademark.
“spam”
As for the beer company change “Vermonster beer” to Vermontster beer
Re: Re:
Actually that has a pretty good ring to it. You should send the beer guy that suggestion…
Assinine
Whenever someone files a bogus trademark, servicemark, copyright or patent claim without proper cause or evidence, it should be quickly denied and 3x the damages they were suing for should be paid to the defendant.
Merely as a sidebar, I noted from the linked article that the letter from the company was signed by its general counsel. I am not quite sure how to put this politely, but she had better give some real serious thought to the rules of professional practice that apply in the state in which she is admitted. She represents the company by whom she is employed. She does not represent the trademark holders. The letter can easily be viewed as one originating from an attorney representing the trademark holders, which implicates a breach of the rules governing the practice of law. This raises numerous issues that state bars generally take quite seriously and view quite negatively.
So what stops random low ball lawsuits from starting all over the place? If I wanted to make a little cash why cant I sue for something like 100 bucks because I cut my lip on a coke can?
Then a whole bunch of people do the same thing, (small amount, minor compliant, costs more to defend then to pay off)
Its even worse if your unemployed with few resources to take if your completely full of BS?
Its free money!
Re: Anonymous Coward
Its free money!
It’s also dishonest and fraud if it didn’t happen or you cut your lip on purpose.
I know I swor them off
I know that I have decided to swear off off monster energy drink until this nonsense stops. To bad too, I liked their blue can swill. I just can’t abide companies that trek this kind of garbage through are system or around it at legal gun point.
Most people that consume “energy drinks” are illiterate morons, so I doubt this will have much effect on Monster’s business…
Re: Re:
I can tell you’ve spent all of about 10 minutes on a college campus in the last decade.
Professional Internet Marketers take on Monster Energy
Hi Mike. It looks to me like Hansen picked the wrong people to pick on. Professional internet marketers are on the warpath. If you want to see what I mean, take a look here:
http://makemoneyforbeginners.blogspot.com/2009/10/monster-energy-drink-vs-vermonster-beer.html
IDK, to me this shouts “HEY WE ARE GOING BANKRUPT SOON! SELL OUR STOCKS!” I think if you cant get by selling your product, you sue people for weird stuff. Record labels suing dead people for infringement / record labels having market and money issues. See where I am going with this.
STOCK TIP: Sell Hansen’s/Monster Energy
Re: Ben
You reap what you sow. Unchanging, unchangeable law of God.
It may come sooner, it may come later, but you will reap what you have sown.
The Monsters of trademark enforcement
I am dying for Monster Energy Drink to meet Monster Cable in a no-holds-barred trademark-overenforcement cage match. How has this not happened already? Or have I missed it? Who caved to whom?
Re: The Monsters of trademark enforcement
I was just about to post exactly the same thing. Monster Cable has gone to extreme lengths in the past to litigate any perceived infringement. Well, Monster Cable, “sic ’em”
Monster Cable revisited?
This sounds a lot like Monster Cable’s tactics some years ago. At that time they were suing anyone and everyone who used the word “monster” in any kind of commercial context for infringing their trademark. From mom-and-pop clothing stores to Walt Disney, any business with “monster” in its name was a potential target. Disney was sued over the title of its movie, “Monsters Inc.”
Hopefully they’ve abandoned that, but I’m not for sure if they have.
More To The Emotional Side
On the emotional and irrational side of the issue, this video blogger rips arse on the subject. he takes Monster to task for other reasons as to why they need to protect “their name” outside of trademark issues.
http://bloggerillustrated.net/monster-energy-drink-and-hansen-have-forgotten-america/
I don’t like this energy drink at all!
Thai Food & Thai Beverage
Thank you very much. The information was very nice and the service was excellent.
Thailand has a great variety of drinks and beverages. If you’d like to learn more about them, try visiting the website, http://www.thai-food.in.th. It is only just beginning but I think you will eventually find it to be a great resource. It also explores a variety of Thai food facts in general.
Re:
What legal decision? It’s the first amendment to the US constitution.