PlanetCatfish.com

For those of you who occassionally visit the forum "Monster Fishkeepers," Monster Energy drinks is claiming that Monster Fish Keepers is infringing on their copyrights. Though the drink company has a weak case against Monster Fish Keepers, the legal resources available to the drink company could allow them to essentially bankrupt Monster Fish Keepers in a legal battle.

Details are here:
http://support.monsterfishkeepers.com/?p=15

A petition to end the lawsuit here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/monster ... fringement

Apparently this isn't the first time they have tried to strong arm a small business with legal action:
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2009/ ... le-dispute

A blog (non-fish hobbyist) commenting on this:
http://consumerist.com/2012/07/monster- ... tanks.html

Who had the name first?

So the makers of the undrinkable swill consider themselves to own the word "Monster"? Even in fields unrelated to beverages?

Like you say their claim is weak but their pockets are deep.

It's not just the name, but the logo too!

Arlene

You know, I'm surprised that Monster Energy Drink hasn't gone after Advanced Auto Parts MONSTER JAM, since monster is in the name. Oh wait, they sponsor some of the trucks at these events. My bad. What a bunch of hypocrits!

Arlene

This doesn't make much sense to me. It's only going to end up as bad publicity for the drinks company, but I guess the average cretin who drinks the stuff won't be reading the news.

Pathetic!

The US of A is well known around the world for having the most ridiculous law system. That does not make sense, most of these suits never do.

The only option monster fish keepers has is to get as much mainstream publicity as possible. Huffingtonpost and techdirt are good places to start.

The original posting tells us about a lawsuit based on copyright. As a trademark attorney this surprises me, as I would assume it would be based on trademarks. In fact, in many couyntries a trademark matterwould never be accepted based on copyright.

This is the case, and trademarks provide protection against use of the trademark - or a similar device - for the goods and services the trademark is protected (and, in the USA used) for - and similar goods and services. Cleaning agency XX will have a problem if XX is a trademark for cleaning stuff

Energydring has nothing to do with keeping fishes, so a Court would have to dismiss all charges - but the legal system in the USA is so complicated, so expensive, the owner of the website will indeed most likely be broke before the Court ruling appears.

The only reasonable chanses Monsterfish will have is awareness of the general public - who might realize what kind of company is behind Monster Energy Drink.

To me, this is a reason to be happy to live elsewhere.

Bas. Our copyright laws make loads of sense and are incredibly simple compared to those in the USA. Not exactly the first time this has happened either. Recently one of the movie maffia sued an English pub because it was called "the hobbit". Apple also has a long history of these suits.

You're right, the only reasonable chance that site has is getting the matter in the public spotlight.

Not sure if everyone is away but Monster energy drink is sueing Monster fish keepers to get rid of their name because appearently its hard to distinguish between fish tanks and a dumb energy drink. Heres more info about it ans apetition to sign. Lets help our fellow fishkeepers keep another great fish site up and running.

http://www.change.org/petitions/monster ... e_receipt#

Also posted here in the Speak Easy Forum.

I will merge into the other post.

Jools

Bas Pels wrote: Energydring has nothing to do with keeping fishes, so a Court would have to dismiss all charges - but the legal system in the USA is so complicated, so expensive, the owner of the website will indeed most likely be broke before the Court ruling appears.

Also, and I may be wrong here, I think that in the US the losing party does not pay the court costs of the winning party, making frivolous lawsuits not only an effectively "free" way to harass/ruin someone but also a viable business idea (because the defendant is likely to settle, regardless of the merits of the suit).

Mike_Noren wrote:So the makers of the undrinkable swill consider themselves to own the word "Monster"?

Not only the word "Monster", but the letter "M" too, apparently. Completely ridiculous, yet if they have enough money to hire the right lawyer(s), as stated above, even if there is no merit to their case, they can still have a severe negative impact on the balance sheet of MFK.com.

Yesterday, I sent Monster Energy a simple message saying their lawsuit makes them look ridiculous and that if they continue to harass MFK.com, I will boycott their products AND tell everyone I know to boycott their products. If enough people make them aware that they will be boycotted for their actions, maybe their bean counters will advise their CEO, CFO, and legal department that their lawsuit is having a negative impact on their balance sheet. You can write them here:
http://www.monsterenergy.com/#!/pages%3Acontact

BTW, I heard a rumor that after they deal with MFK.com, they are going to go after Cookie Monster next:

Tom Waits is quite the prophet.

That video is awesome!!!!


Have signed the petition and spread it around, sucks when big corporates do this sort of thing. A big commercial brewery here managed to trademark the word "Radler" for their lime-infused beer, despite the Germans having used it for hundreds of years...

That happens all the time. Uggs are a certain kind of shoes in Australia, and an expensive brand elsewhere. The owner also protects his trademark agressively. Trademark applications canbe refused on the ground of being generic - but than they need to be generic in the area where they are filed. Radler is generic in Germany, perhaps in a few countries around Germany but not in New Sealand.

The protectability of trademarks changes regularly, and how much protection a registration provides is also dependend on many grounds which are unknown. I can only say that this is, probably, what attracted me when I became a trademark attorney: It always comes down to real society.

If they think they have sole use of an 'm' logo are they gonna go after McDonalds???

Now that I would like to see: garbage beverages going after garbage food.

I've sent a letter and signed the petition. When a big 'monster' like this goes on the attack, the little guys have to become like a school of piranha and shred the behemoth.