Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
Hall Of Shame Member
|Added December 29, 2004|
Last Updated April 13 2009
Who is Noel Lee? He's a very rich, sorry ass S.O.B. who owns Monster Cable which is located in Brisbane, California.
For some ungodly reason he believes, or pretends to believe, that because he owns Monster Cable he owns the rights
to the word MONSTER anywhere in commerce. We kid you not. His trademark, received in 1979, is not just for the word
MONSTER but that hasn't stopped him. In our opinion, Monster Cable sucks and Noel Lee sucks,
and we will show you why a lot of other people believe the same thing. We think it's time a federal court smacked Mr. Monster upside his
monstrous ego and sanctioned his lawyers.
There are a few "monster" uses to which yet he hasn't laid claim so we will endeavor to give them to him now. Noel Lee has a monster ego but really is nothing more than a monstor moron. His attorney, a bottom feeder at LaRiviere, Grubman & Payne, LLP, is a monster butt-wipe while Noel Lee's kid (shown at right) is monster ugly.
Monster Cable, a California-based company, has an ego to match it's name. It filed for a trademarke for
Monster Cable in 1978. Now, it seems they believe they own the exclusive rights
to the word Monster for everything. Perhaps the folks at Monster Cable have an inferiority complex? We're heard that the
louder someone beats their chest the smaller their wee-wee. Mr. Monster must have a very small one. Perhaps Mrs Noel Lee can tell us?
If Monster Cable prevails, the Gila Monster will become just another lizard. The Monster under your bed will have to become an ogre. The Monster Monday Morning Hangover will have to be described in some benign manner unbefitting the agony. Your Monster bad breath in the morning will be called "undesirable morning exhalation".
And what about the COOKIE MONSTER, the MONSTER MASH, MONSTER TRUCKS and MONSTER.COM?
We feel this is another example of a company, aided by their IP lawyers, running amok in Trademark Land. Only an apple-brained moron, or an IP attorney, could draw any sort of connection between Monster Cable and a Monster Pizza, between Monster Cable and Snow Monsters, or between Monster Cable and the Disney movie, Monsters, Inc. But the bottom feeders at LaRiviere, Grubman & Payne, LLP do their duty, to client and paycheck, like the corporate lawyers they are. We are surprised that opposing lawyers do not use the equitable defense that Monster Cable is engaging in Trademark Abuse and as such all trademarks registered to Monster Cable should be declared void. Federal courts have that authority.
Articles About Monster Cable
Monster Cable isn't the earliest Monster trademark. The following trademarks are registered
with the USPTO before or near that of Monster Cable:
LaRiviere, Grubman & Payne, LLP has offices in Monterey and San Jose, California, and Seattle, Washington. Their web site is located at http://www.lgpatlaw.com/home.html.
We don't know of any actions by Monster Cable on eBay to date (December 29, 2004). However, a quick search of eBay auctions shows 19,768 auctions with the name MONSTER in the title. That will keep their IP lawyers lying for a long time. And, it will keep NetEnforcers busy as well since Monster Cable employs these CyberCops to do their dirty business for them.
Update March 1, 2008
On Februay 21, 2008, Monster Cable ordered eBay aution # 280202374277 - NEW Monster iCable Connects iPod & Mac to Your Stereo!, terminated as an "unauthorized item". eBay gave firstname.lastname@example.org as the contact email address. IPOwner.net is owned by a "front company" in order to keep the real identity of the URL a secret. We wonder why would a reputable business want to keep their identity a secret? Oh. that's right. We're talking about Monster Cable, with whom the phrase reputable business would not be linked. Sorry.
What on Earth would prompt Monster Cable to order terminated an eBay auction for an authentic Monster item? We don't know because the low-lifes at Monster Cable are not replying to the seller's emails for an explanation. And, eBay does not require the VeRO member explain or answer anything! Wow, eBay! Nice way to handle your sellers. No wonder they are leaving eBay for other venues.
|So, Monster Cable? Did some idiot in your office take down the perfectly legitimate auction or was it some bottom feeder at LaRiviere, Grubman & Payne, LLP? Or, have you told NetEnforcers, your low-life Cyber Cops, to begin shutting down all auctions of your items? Hmmmm? Inquiring minds want to know.|
Surprise! On March 8, 2008, we received more information! Seems Monster Cable has a new bottom feeder source,
the Boston law firm WolfBlock.
Seems some idiot at WolfBlock, Christopher S Finnerty, called the auction seller. First, Christopher S Finnerty, of the Boston law firm WolfBlock,
attempted to claim the auction was terminated because of "copying intellectual property from the website". But the seller took his own pictures and took
all data from the box! (We have a big issue with companies who claim their website technical information and product description is copyright protected -
see Image and Text Theft). Gee, Chris, what's next?
Undaunted, Christopher S Finnerty, of the Boston law firm WolfBlock, then claimed the auction was offering to ship "outside the US". Whoa, there Nellie. Chris, since when is it illegal for someone to ship something outside the US, such as these authentic cables, and the manufacturer have a say in it? Chris, don't go off claiming "parallel imports" because the key word there is "imports", not exports. Monster Cable has no legal standing to stop eBay auctions because the items might be shipped to Europe. It's up to Monster Cable UK, if there is one, to stop these items from being imported in the UK.
Seems that Christopher S Finnerty, of the Boston law firm WolfBlock, relented and emailed eBay to reinstate the auction on March 7, 2008. Hey, Chris? Why didn't you do your job properly in the first place and none of this would have taken place? Oh, that's right, you don't care about the rights of others, only that fat commission check coming in from Monster Cable. Do you kids know what you really do for a living? We bet they're really proud of their daddy.
Update April 16, 2008
And the hits just keep on a-comin'. Audioholics, located at www.audioholics.com, recently posted an article called Blue Jeans Cable Strikes Back - Response to Monster Cable, which appears to be a follow-up of an earlier Audioholics article, Monster Cable Sues Blue Jeans Cable. This letter has been picked up by OverLawyered.com as well as other outlets. It seems that Monster Cable is not held in high regard, and for good reason. To read the letter from Monster Cable, written by some low-life corporate lawyer named Christopher J Passarelli at LaRiviere, Grubman & Payne, LLP, click here (it's in PDF format). As of December 2008, Monster Cable has not responded or taken any further actions.
What we have here in Monster Cable is a perfect example of trademark abuse by the IP owner (or alleged IP owner in this case). Stronger civil penalties are needed against the companies, their officers, and their law firms.
Companies Sued By Or Threatened With Law Suit By Monster Cable
We have compiled a table showing some 87 trademark opposition filings made by Monster Cable during 2006 through 2008. These filing are taken
directly from information provided on-line by the US Trademark and Patent Office (USPTO).
Click here to see the full table in numerical order or in alphabetical order.
Some of the opposition filings are to stop trademarks using the word "monster" for baby clothing, animal feed, glow in the dark miniature golf course, fishing tackle, hot dog sandwiches, burglar alarms, and web design, but to name a few.
A search for "MONSTER" gives 932 live records (as of December 19, 2008). Most of these use the word "MONSTER" in some form, that is, combined with other words. A search for Monster Cable as trademark owner yields some 273 live trademarks on file. "LIVE" does not mean the trademark is registered. It means it is either registered or has been filed for registration and the mark has not been approved or rejected as of yet. Of the 273 "live" trademarks for Monster Cable, 113 do not have the word "MONSTER" included leaving 160. Of these 39 are "pending" leaving Monster Cable with 121 live trademarks (including "design only") with "MONSTER" in the mark. 19 of these are Monster Garage which, in our opinion, was stolen, taken forcibly, from the rightful owners.
|The images above are opinions expressed by audioholics who do not agree with the tactics of Noel Lee|
Update June 1, 2011 |
Marcus J. Ledergerber, Esquire, strikes us as a whack job extraordinaire. His name appears in the Trademark Office listing of Opposition Filings, in numerical order, and the alphabetical listing of same. Look for MONSTER BYTES.US. Seems Marcus J. Ledergerber wants his name taken off these reproductions of public documents. We declined. Click here for a detailed description of the emails exchanged.
In an effort to provide a balanced view, we make the following offer to anyone who feels they have been wrongly accused on this web site.
If you, or your company, have been referenced on these pages, and you would like the chance to post a rebuttal, we will post your rebuttal (provided it is in good taste) so others can read it. The rebuttal must be submitted in a format that can easily be converted into HTML. We reserve the right to alter the rebuttal to make it more readable. However, we will not alter the content (unless there is offensive material to be removed). We also reserve the right to comment on any rebuttal received. Emails protesting the content of this web site may be treated as rebuttals by us at our discretion.
Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Initial Interest Confusion |
Likelihood Of Confusion |
Material Difference Standard
Parallel Imports | Post-sale Confusion | Puffery | Secondary Meaning | Subsequent Confusion | Trademark Abuse
Unauthorized Use | Unfair Competition | What is a Trademark?
Angel Policies |
Contributory Infringement |
Copyright Extortion |
Copyright Misuse Doctrine |
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
EULA | Fair Use | First Sale Doctrine | Product Description | Registration | Registration Denied | What is a Copyright? | What is not Copyrightable?
Embroidery Designs |
FAQs & Whines |
Image and Text Theft |
Licensed Fabric |
Licensing & Licenses |
Patterns Index |
Selvage | Stanford School of Law Case Outline | Tabberone Disclaimer | Trademark Extortion | Urban Myths | What To Do If You Are Veroed
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
Filing A Federal Lawsuit
Setting Up | Standing. | Joinder of Parties. | The Complaint | Their Answer | Default Judgment
F.R.C.P. 12(b) Motion | F.R.C.P. 12(f) Motion | Your Reply | Summary Judgment Motion | Affidavits | Time Extension
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 © 1999-2012|