# 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?


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 11, 2009)

bvibert said:


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



She didn't defend her trademark, so she lost it. Mother Nature is not a very good businessperson. Has some amazing designs, though.


----------



## bvibert (Dec 15, 2009)

Another:
http://www.boardistan.com/?p=12318

This one at least has some legitimacy..


----------



## mondeo (Dec 15, 2009)

bvibert said:


> Another:
> http://www.boardistan.com/?p=12318
> 
> This one at least has some legitimacy..


But from the sounds of it, Chanel didn't defend the trademark previously. DC is probably just avoiding the legal battle.


----------



## bvibert (Dec 15, 2009)

mondeo said:


> But from the sounds of it, Chanel didn't defend the trademark previously. DC is probably just avoiding the legal battle.



Sounds like they did, but then came to an agreement due to the small size of DC at the time.  Who knows what the agreement was, and if it's been violated since.


----------



## SkiDork (Dec 16, 2010)

well here's the latest stupid lawsuit:

Woman sues McDonald's over Happy Meals

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/15/woman-sues-mcdonalds-over-happy-meals/?hpt=Sbin&hpt=C2

I like the comment by star


----------



## bvibert (Dec 16, 2010)

SkiDork said:


> well here's the latest stupid lawsuit:
> 
> Woman sues McDonald's over Happy Meals
> 
> ...



Star is spot on.

I have two young kids who ask to go to BK a lot because of the toys.  Sometimes we allow it as a special treat (maybe a little too often due to my laziness), but many other times we just say no and drive on by.  It's not that hard.  I think this woman needs to learn some discipline if it bothers her that much.


----------



## SkiDork (Dec 16, 2010)

We often stop at BK on the way up to K (drive-thru) but thats the only fast food we do.  For many years it was almost comical to watch the 2 kids when the meals got passed in the window.  "Wheres the toy wheres the toy wheres the toy".  The food was an afterthought to them.  Funny stuff.  They've kinda outgrown that now.  Iceman gets an adult meal.

I always got the last laugh though.  The next week I'd throw out all BK toys.  Most of them ended up on the floor of the Suburban after the weekend was over anyway


----------



## Glenn (Dec 16, 2010)

SkiDork said:


> well here's the latest stupid lawsuit:
> 
> Woman sues McDonald's over Happy Meals
> 
> ...



Agreed. Good comment by star.


----------



## drjeff (Dec 16, 2010)

bvibert said:


> Star is spot on.
> 
> I have two young kids who ask to go to BK a lot because of the toys.  Sometimes we allow it as a special treat (maybe a little too often due to my laziness), but many other times we just say no and drive on by.  It's not that hard.  I think this woman needs to learn some discipline if it bothers her that much.



Come on now B, you actually want an adult to act like an adult??   

Unfortunately in this case it also seems like the attorney that took this case also needs to learn that adults need to say "no" sometimes! :smash:


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 16, 2010)

I think when the lady looses the lawsuit one of the provisions be she has to attend a parenting course.


----------



## Geoff (Dec 16, 2010)

SkiDork said:


> well here's the latest stupid lawsuit:
> 
> Woman sues McDonald's over Happy Meals
> 
> ...



Turn the friggin' TV off if you don't want your kids to be brainwashed by advertising.


----------



## Black Phantom (Dec 16, 2010)

Geoff said:


> Turn the friggin' TV off if you don't want your kids to be brainwashed by advertising.



How would the kids be occupied on the way to the mountain?


----------



## darent (Dec 16, 2010)

another stupid lawsuit. a person is suing mercedes saying that the" new car smell" made her wreck. sounds like some lawyers looking for work.


----------



## Geoff (Dec 16, 2010)

Black Phantom said:


> How would the kids be occupied on the way to the mountain?



There are two answers to this...

DVDs don't have advertising

Use a roll of duct tape to shut the monsters up


----------

