Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own
|
|
Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won |
|
|
The Tabberone™ Archives These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement. When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position. |
|
Source: http://www.bevreview.com/2009/10/15/monster-energy-vs-bevreviewcom/ October 16, 2009. Follow up posts by readers and advertising are omitted. |
|
BevReview.com Beverage reviews for the curious connoisseur 
|
|
Monster Energy vs. BevReview.com Oct 15th, 2009 by Steve Update 10/15/09: Consumerist.com, owned by Consumer Reports, has picked up on our story… Monster Energy Trains Legal Guns On Beverage Review Website Here on BevReview.com, we not only like to review beverages (it's sort of in our name), but also speculate and discuss trends & patterns we often see in the industry. We don't claim to be experts on the matter, but hopefully, we give you something to think about every now and then.
And while we've been reviewing beverages in various capacities since 2001, something interesting happened last week. Apparently, a company didn't like what we were doing and decided to send their lawyers our way. Fun stuff! Here's the context… I received what appeared to be a legitimate message from a law firm last week, submitted via a web-based contact form attached to my personal discussion forums, TannerWorld Junction. (Without actual mail headers, we cannot confirm if this message is authentic, but we have our hunches.) The message was written in regard to a beverage review I wrote in March 2007 and posted on those forums, in a time before we formally launched BevReview.com.
|
|
Name: Legal
E-mail Address: Comments: Re: Hansen Beverage Company Trademark Infringement To Whom It May Concern: As I am sure you are aware, Hansen Beverage Company ("Hansen") is responsible for the production of the Hansen brand juice, teas and energy drinks and the Monster brand energy drinks. Relative to this business, Hansen owns many valuable designs, trademarks, trade dress and copyrights, which it uses to identify and market its Hansen and Monster brand products ("the Hansen Marks"). The Hansen marks are of great value to Hansen, as they are used to indicate that goods or services are affiliated with and monitored by Hansen. Considering this, every time the Hansen marks appear in the marketplace, Hansen's good name and reputation are on the line.
Hansen is fully aware of the fact that it would not be as successful as it is without the continued passion and devotion of Hansen and Monster enthusiasts. However, the way in which Hansen allows its trademarks to be used is strictly prescribed by law. Hansen simply cannot allow the Hansen marks to be used without its explicit authorization. For this reason, Hansen is forced to consistently monitor the use of the Hansen marks or risk losing ownership of those marks.
Upon your receipt and review of this letter, please contact our offices so that we may work toward a resolution of the issue that is satisfactory to all parties involved.
Sincerely,
P 317.818.0523 http://forums.tannerworld.com/showthread.php?t=8751 |
|
The firm sending the complaint is identified as Continental Enterprises, which according to their website, "is an intellectual property consulting firm that takes a
novel and aggressive approach to brand protection and infringement issues."
After the initial shock wore off, along with questioning "is this for real?", I talked with some associates who run similar websites that also feature reviews. After some consultation, we decided to withhold a response, waiting to see if a second communication would arrive and/or to verify the authenticity of the original complaint. Well, yesterday, another e-mail arrived in our Inbox, again through the same web contact form. This time it arrived at 1:48 p.m. on October 18: |
|
|
Name: Legal Dept
E-mail Address: Comments: Re: Hansen Beverage Company Intellectual Property To Whom It May Concern: I have yet to receive a response to my prior correspondence with you. Hansen Beverage Company considers this a serious matter and, if you do not take immediate steps to resolve this issue, they will be forced to take more aggressive action to protect their intellectual property rights. I await your immediate response. This correspondence is being sent in an attempt to achieve a prompt and informal resolution of this matter, and is thus privileged. Nothing contained in and/or omitted from this letter or any prior communications is intended to be or should be considered an admission of any fact or a waiver of any right or defense, all of which are expressly reserved.
Sincerely, Link of violation: http://forums.tannerworld.com/showthread.php?t=8751 |
|
First of all, to the folks at Hansen and Monster Energy… what the heck? Ever hear of "fair use". I fail to see anything in my reviews that could be considered
us having "advertised and/or sold products bearing one or more of the Hansen marks, or confusingly similar derivations thereof."
Of course, the more ironic part… Hansen Beverage Company has previously provided BevReview.com with samples of their beverages for the purposes of online review. Perhaps the marketing/PR department should talk to the legal folks! What's your take on all this? Post in the comments! BevReview.com © 2009 All Rights Reserved. |
| To return to the Continental Enterprises Articles Page, click here. |
|
General Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Corporate Lawyers |
|
Definitions |
|
Federal Court Cases Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations |
|
Federal Statutes Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22 |
|
VeRO (Verified Right's Owner Program) VeRO Commandments | VeRO-Verified Rights Owners Program | Counter Notice Letter Counter Notice (pre-2003) | Counter Notice present | On-Line Survey from 2004 | Articles about VeRO | What To Do If You Are Veroed |
| Original material by Karen Dudnikov & Michael Meadors is © 1999-2019 |
