Another effed up lawsuit.

bvibert · Oct 14, 2009

I just saw this on another website, seems like it's worth sharing.

Apparently the makers of Monster energy drink are suing Rock Art Brewery for supposed trademark infringement with their beer called Vermonster. I'm not sure who would think that Vermonster beer and Monster energy drinks are the same thing??:-?

Read more about it here, there's also a video from the owner of Rock Art Brewery:
http://www.rockartbrewery.com/

Glenn · Oct 14, 2009

This could get interesting. I thought there was a character used in VT (for tourism?) called the Vermonster.

bvibert · Oct 14, 2009

Glenn said:
This could get interesting. I thought there was a character used in VT (for tourism?) called the Vermonster.

Ben and Jerry's has a huge ice cream sunday called the Vermonster.

Trekchick · Oct 14, 2009

If I were Halloween, I'd sue Monster energy drink for steeling the idea from Monster Mash.

ctenidae · Oct 14, 2009

I'm no lawyer, but I do know that if you don't defend a trademark, you can loose it. Chances are they settle for lawyers fees and an exemption so Monster can say "We defended our trademark"

bvibert · Oct 14, 2009

There's nothing to defend, it's not the same name.

ComeBackMudPuddles · Oct 15, 2009

is the risk of confusion that people might confuse "vermonster" and "monster"?? lol.

whatever, that tiny brewery has gotten so much free advertising out of this i can't feel bad for them.

ctenidae · Oct 15, 2009

According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, Hansen has filed suit against several otehr companies. At least one was dismissed without prejudice, everyone responsible for their own fees. Likely the same will happen here, and Vermonster will benefit from a nationwide media campaign.

Interesting some of the things our tax dollars pay for- handy, many of them:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/

WWF-VT · Oct 15, 2009

Only the lawyer from Hansen Beverages / Monster is dumb enough to confuse an energy drink with a craft beer. Total pain and waste of money for Rock Art to have to defend itself

bvibert · Oct 15, 2009

WWF-VT said:
Only the lawyer from Hansen Beverages / Monster is dumb enough to confuse an energy drink with a craft beer. Total pain and waste of money for Rock Art to have to defend itself

Exactly!

billski · Oct 15, 2009

WWF-VT said:
Only the lawyer from Hansen Beverages / Monster is dumb enough to confuse an energy drink with a craft beer. Total pain and waste of money for Rock Art to have to defend itself

The Hansen attorney needed to justify his salary this year.

ctenidae · Oct 15, 2009

WWF-VT said:
Only the lawyer from Hansen Beverages / Monster is dumb enough to confuse an energy drink with a craft beer. Total pain and waste of money for Rock Art to have to defend itself

What's interesting (playing fast and loose with that term, I realize) is tehe trademark excludes the word "Energy" except when used in onjunction with Monster, but does not exclude Monster.

jaywbigred · Oct 22, 2009

I took trademark in law school, and I really think this is one of those situations where no one was really at fault.

Obviously, as a beer lover and fan of the state of Vermont (and the northeast's overall commitment to small breweries), I found it easy to side with Rock Art.

But with the law being what it is (having been shaped by hundreds of years of statutes and case law), I couldn't really blame the Monster people for doing what they did; it basically being their responsibility to vigorously defend their trademark or risk losing it.

In any event, I'm happy to report that they have settled!!! The litigation-avoidance path is paved with the glory of heaven (and hops and taurine, too). This is why I wanted to be a mediator in the first place! There are better ways to solve things...

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...910210303/Vermonster-triumphs-in-name-dispute

WWF-VT · Oct 22, 2009

Rock Art triumphs in Vermonster name dispute

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...910210303/Vermonster-triumphs-in-name-dispute

Rock Art Brewery picked up the support of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in its battle with the maker of Monster energy drinks, which is arguing the Rock Art beer "The Vermonster" infringes upon its intellectual property rights.

The corporate strong-arming irked Sanders.

"I don't like to see large corporations who have endless amount of money and lawyers intimidate small companies that are struggling to survive," Sanders said Monday.
"I am not a trademark attorney, but I believe that any normal person would find your claim preposterous," Sanders wrote in a letter mailed to Hansen Beverage on Tuesday. "An energy drink is not a beer, and the word 'monster' is not 'Vermonster.' Any person who would get confused by these two different products and names should probably slow down a bit, and lay off energy drinks."

ctenidae · Nov 11, 2009

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/10/autos/porsche_vs_crocs/index.htm

See? defend it, or lose it...

bvibert · Nov 11, 2009

ctenidae said:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/10/autos/porsche_vs_crocs/index.htm

See? defend it, or lose it...

That's not any better than the above lawsuit. Stupid if you ask me, and a waste of time and money.

ctenidae · Nov 11, 2009

bvibert said:
That's not any better than the above lawsuit. Stupid if you ask me, and a waste of time and money.

Yeah, but a fact of life. If you're a trademark attorney, anyway.
There is a certain logic to it, though- if you're not actively using a trademark, then it ought to be okay for others to use it. And how do you prove you're using it? Defend it.

Imagine if Dodge came out with a hard-top sports car called teh Cayman. Porsche would feel pretty stupid if Dodge could get away with it because Porsche failed to tell Crocs to stop using the name. Doesn't mean Croc ahs to stop using it, Porsche just has to tell them to. Then they can agree that it's okay.

bvibert · Nov 11, 2009

ctenidae said:
Yeah, but a fact of life. If you're a trademark attorney, anyway.
There is a certain logic to it, though- if you're not actively using a trademark, then it ought to be okay for others to use it. And how do you prove you're using it? Defend it.

Imagine if Dodge came out with a hard-top sports car called teh Cayman. Porsche would feel pretty stupid if Dodge could get away with it because Porsche failed to tell Crocs to stop using the name. Doesn't mean Croc ahs to stop using it, Porsche just has to tell them to. Then they can agree that it's okay.

I understand what you're saying, but I still think it's stupid. There's a big difference between a car and cheap pair of shoe like devices...

ctenidae · Nov 11, 2009

bvibert said:
I understand what you're saying, but I still think it's stupid. There's a big difference between a car and cheap pair of shoe like devices...

Yes, but there's no difference between Cayman and Cayman. At least this one has some name relevance. The Monster/Vermonster one was stretching it a bit.

bvibert · Nov 11, 2009

ctenidae said:
Yes, but there's no difference between Cayman and Cayman. At least this one has some name relevance. The Monster/Vermonster one was stretching it a bit.

I agree, but it's also the name of an animal. Is mother nature going to sue Porsche next?

Another effed up lawsuit.

Moderator

Active member

Moderator

Active member

Active member

Moderator

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Moderator

Active member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Moderator

Active member

Moderator

Active member

Moderator

Similar threads