Monster Cable, which has a reputation for lawsuits against companies using the word “monster” in their business names, filed suit against MMG demanding the company abandon its applications for trademark and pay licensing fees.

The Vitaglianos had a compelling story—a couple that once lived in their office to support their fledging business—that they took the Web via their website and via eBay, where they sought donations to their legal fund to defend against a much bigger company. Their story was posted at WebProNews and Consumerist, among many other blogs, and the public outcry began.

Monster Cable was at first defiant, reiterating their right to protect their trademark lest it be diluted and become generic, explaining how they found litigation unpleasant, and portraying the company as the victim of narrative spin. Monster Cable was not, they insisted, a corporate bully.

As the backlash intensified, Monster answered MMG’s stop-the-bully webpage with a “Monster Truth” webpage of its own. On it, Lee made a public proposal. On December 19, Lee said the company had dropped the lawsuit against MMG and would let the trademark office decide, but still would require $100 per month per franchise, which would be donated to charity.

"…on Dec 30th we actually got a phone call from Noel Lee! Patrick, Noel, myself and a pile of attorneys began what looked like a long painful conference call.  Then it occurred to us that this issue was between Noel and Patrick and myself…and we tossed the attorneys off the call.  Aaaah…what a relief….We took the night to regroup and then continued again the next day with Noel and Kevin Lee, Noel’s son and we, as a group, all came to an agreement….

”First of all, we can now register our trademark, Monster Mini Golf! Secondly, Monster Cable (or more importantly, Noel) has agreed to compensate us for legal fees….I think that as some companies grow everything becomes about everything else, except the humans involved. Once in a while, we need to be reminded.”

Vitagliano acknowledged Mr. Lee didn’t legally have to concede as much as he did, and commended him for taking care of the situation himself without attorneys.

Mr. Lee even offered an apology in writing. Some of that letter is to follow:

“I personally want to apologize to all for not having been directly involved in this dispute, and not have taken the opportunity to meet and talk to the both of you to understand the entire situation.

”It’s amazing what happens when people talk without the filter of attorneys speaking for us….

”Through the many emails and communications on line, clearly we have been made out to be the bad guy. It’s unfortunate some people feel this way, because we really feel the opposite….

”I will say that this is a landmark kind of situation, as public opinion wins over what is the right thing to do for trademark protection of a famous mark. We have made the decision that public opinion, and that of our valued customers is more important than the letter of the law that requires us to prevent the dilution of our mark risk losing it.”

After coverage on an NBC affiliate, at least three condemning posts on Consumerist, an eBay fundraiser for legal fees, Christina Vitagliano’s side of the story, the blogosphere in general getting stirred up, Lee issued WebProNews this statement:

Regardless of what false representations have been circulated about Monster, we are not a faceless corporate giant out to squash legitimate business concerns and rising entrepreneurs. We are in fact, a family-owned company that relies heavily on our brand name and reputation in order to continue serving our customers. We have always tried to provide our customers with the highest performance products at an affordable price.

While we are best known for our cable products, we also manufacture high performance accessories in business areas ranging in home theater, computing, gaming, portable entertainment and power management. To protect these business areas, we have sought and been awarded trademarks for each respective category. In addition to the areas above, in the past 30 years, we have also expanded the categories including sports and other lifestyle ventures. According to the trademark law, we must enforce our marks or we will lose them and they will become generic.

We were trying our best to avoid the lawsuit, and we are trying our best to settle the lawsuit.

Though one might question use of the term “affordable”—Monster Cable’s products are notoriously expensive upgrades at electronics stores—and though one has to wonder if the term “monster” itself is already generic, Lee says his company’s protection of its trademark is no different from other companies like eBay (enforces ownership of “bay”), Apple, Virgin, or Amazon, all of which have names taken from commonly-used or dictionary words.

Google fought a losing battle a couple of years ago against the use of its mark as a verb and the entry of “to google” into the dictionary fearing the genericidal woes of Xerox and Kleenex. It stands to reason, then, according to Lee, that Monster would enforce ownership of its trademark wherever challenged.

Said enforcement presumably includes action against the Discovery Channel’s Monster Garage, Walt Disney’s Monsters Inc., and Hanna Barbara’s Scooby Doo and the Monster of Mexico.

It’s important to note that “action against” doesn’t always mean a lawsuit. In many cases, it is simple opposition filed at the US Patent and Trademark Office, which files 19 pages worth of such Monster Cable oppositions. This seems to be at the root of disputes about whether the company has filed hundreds of lawsuits or just opposed usage of the word “monster” at the USPTO.

“We have never sued the Chicago Bears. We have not filed 400 lawsuits,” said Lee, in a letter to angry customers concerned about reports of corporate bullying. “We don’t like lawsuits any more than any other company, and don’t like spending money on attorneys, especially in light of the current economic situation.”

Following that line of thought, perhaps that’s why Monster Cables must be priced at $100; litigation is expensive. If only these defendants would accept settlements and licensing fees, maybe Monster Cable could lower its prices.

Perhaps most important to note in this situation is, when it comes to public sentiment, the press, and even courtrooms, everything is reduced to narrative. While crying foul on the Vitaglianos’ “mom and pop” reputation—Christina Vitagliano admitted to WebProNews they were no longer any such type of business—Lee attempted to debunk the narrative that Monster Cable is a bully corporation picking on the little guys who can’t afford to defend themselves.

“It’s important to note that we are not some gigantic corporate bully as portrayed. We are also a small company with a great culture, still family owned with 500 employees in Brisbane California. We are not a public company with deep pockets. It’s not inconceivable that Monster Mini Golf could exceed the reach of Monster Cable with the trademark of Monster.”

eBay shut down Vitagliano’s original listing because listed sellers must sell something tangible—i.e., no donations accepted. Now, a customer can buy $2 off of a round of minigolf for just a dollar, good at one of 23 Monster Mini Golf locations.

With less than a week left on the new listing, Vitagliano and her husband have accrued $5,000 toward the $100,000-plus needed to defend themselves against a notoriously litigious and much larger company, alleging use of the term “monster” constitutes trademark infringement. Monster Cable seems to fear some confusion of its audio cables with Monster Mini Golf, where Monster Energy Drink is sold.

Vitagliano readily admits she and her husband Patrick, thanks to years of hard work and hard budgeting, no longer qualify as a “mom and pop” organization, but their franchisees certainly are. The couple recently graduated from living on the floor of their office to a humble loft apartment in Rhode Island.

“We are self-funded, no investors, no partners,” Vitagliano said. “We still work 24/7 and every penny we have we put back in our business. When you grow up working, that’s what you do.”

Though the US Patent and Trademark office approved Monster Mini Golf’s application for trademark, Noel Lee, self-described “head monster” at Monster Cable, deployed his also self-described “slimiest of all slimy lawyers” to challenge the approval. The Vitaglianos join over 400 other companies Monster Cable has taken legal action against, all of whom dared to use the word “monster” in their business, even some in existence with a registered trademark before Monster Cable.

A search at the USPTO brings back 2344 filings involving the word monster, and 19 pages of Monster Cable legal challenges against marks and companies, big and small, like: Monster Ballads, Monsters of Rock, Booby Monster, Monster Balls, Monster Ballz, Monster Garage, Scooby Doo and the Monster of Mexico, Monster Seats, Jingle Bell Monster, Monster Truck, Monster Snot, Boogie Monsters, Monster Choppers, Monster Glue, Monster Refreshment (Coca Cola), Monster Pis, Monster Samurai, Monster Paint, Monster Tax, Monster Baby.

Vitagliano says she was going to send Mr. Lee a list of enemies he’s made, but the list got to be so long she gave up.

It would be interesting to hear the argument for how Monster Cable could be confused with Monster Snot or an episode of Scooby Doo. Unfortunately, many of those arguments never get made because big companies settle, finding it cheaper to pay the licensing fees, and small companies, with legal fees mounting at $450 per hour, just go away and die or rebrand. Either way, Monster Cable benefits.
 
Vitagliano compares Monster Cable to Starbucks, having the mission to crush every mom-and-pop coffee shop in the nation. She lists among small retailers Monster Computer Cases, run by Daniel Mosher out of his home, and Monster Vintage, a small vintage clothing company run by a handicap woman, as recent small-business targets.

Vitagliano’s goal is to make this as public a fight as possible, hence the eBay listing, and of course to stand up for small businesses “bullied” by Monster Cable. The publicity has helped a little so far. She says Kurt Denke, proprietor of Blue Jeans Cable, who is known as one of the most successful defendants against Monster Cable, agreed to match any funds raised by the eBay listing. A local NBC affiliate in Rhode Island also has covered the story, the video from which is now on YouTube.

Said affiliate was more successful at getting a statement from Monster Cable than WebProNews; neither Mr. Lee nor his PR team returned request for comment. From the newscast:

“Monster [Cable] is not a company that frivolously uses litigation against other businesses, in fact we consider lawsuits to be a last resort option. Unfortunately, as in the case of Monster Mini Golf, our fair and reasonable offer for the company to continue using our trademark under a license was refused.”

Apparently no comment was offered in reference to the company’s litigation against Scooby Doo or any of the other 2,000 or so other businesses using their trademark. Vitagliano’s supporters have also had trouble seeking additional comment—reports have said emails with subject lines regarding Monster Mini Golf have been redirected to the trash. She says also she tried to schedule a sit-down chat, business-owner to business-owner, with Mr. Lee.

“I thought if we are going to give up the company we built literally with our hands then I want to meet the man I’m writing the check to,” she said.

Mr. Lee, she says, would not consent to an in-person meeting.
 

Audioholics received permission from Kurt Denke, president of Blue Jeans Cable, to republish a long response to Monster Cable’s claims of infringement. Denke’s response is funny, detailed, and not above taking a swipe at Monster Cable for basing their operations in Bermuda:

Let me begin by stating, without equivocation, that I have no interest whatsoever in infringing upon any intellectual property belonging to Monster Cable. Indeed, the less my customers think my products resemble Monster’s, in form or in function, the better.

Further, on that point: one of the design patents you attached is closely related to a utility patent applicable to the same design, and you failed to point that fact out. I need to be able to rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information you send to me and I find this sort of omission deeply disturbing because it is clear that the effect of this nondisclosure is to obscure the real significance of the patent features. Similarly, as I note further below, you omit reference to another patent Monster has held which appears, frankly, to be fatal to your position. If you expect to persuade me, you had better start making full, open and honest disclosures; I will find out the facts sooner or later in any event, but the impact upon your credibility will not be repaired.

Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements. I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable’s principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable “family,” and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm’s-length transactions.

In plaintiffs’ practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table. I am “uncompromising” in the most literal sense of the word. If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds.

This might be one of the most beautifully written, extended middle fingers, I’ve ever seen.