Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

sadiesara — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:00:41 -0000

First of all, the energy drink monster sucks and your kinda rude. This poor guy started his business from scratch WAYY before Monster energy drink even existed. Just because Monster energy drink is a big money making business, does not mean that Hansen will lose. Be a little more considerate with your words dude.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

ehouwen — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:23:31 -0000

An interesting case where Bickfords of Australia attempted to use the trademarks of MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY, the initial findings were that the similarity in names could be deceiving, in regard to "passing off".
Giving proper referencing to the following source: http://www.iprights.com/doc....

While Hansen won rregarding reputation in Australia (Hansen Beverage Company v Bickford’s (Australia) Pty Ltd, [2008] FCAFC 181), in part, the court found : "Courts can look at the impact of indirect marketing techniques, including the internet, viral
campaigns and websites".

This works on both sides of the fence. There is an overwhelming majority of comments on blogs, etc, indicating there is no chance of confusing the two products. Further, elsewhere, bloggers seemingly attached Hansen refer to the Trade Practices Act.

However, also see:
"http://www.mondaq.com/austr..."... the Trade Practices Act is concerned with consumer protection. Consequently, the Act makes no reference to reputation, although case law establishes that the likelihood of consumers being misled or deceived relates to a "significant" or "substantial" proportion of persons within the relevant market. Accordingly, the sufficiency of the reputation that is required to be shown may be less in proceedings under the Trade Practices Act than in proceedings alleging passing off."

Hansen's letter to Rock Art is more concerned with "...a likelihood of confusion and/or dilute the distinctive quality of Hansen's MONSTER marks..." (9/4/2009 letter from Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP to Law office of Christopher Day).

Hansen needs to provide an argument for sufficient reputation in the beer market because the issue is whether a significant number of people would be misled. Since Hansen does not currently sell, distribute, purvey, advertise or market through any means, any G & S: Beer, there is no reputation to blur or mislead.

You can go to Canada:
Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C.V. v. Marcon,
Registrar of Trade-marks, application 1,168,019, C.R.
Folz, August 12, 2008) for more regarding "Predatory trademark filer", which is as some believe is what Hansen's next step is once Rock Art is out of the beer business with Vemonster"

Or to Europe:
Intel Corporation Inc v CPM United Kingdom Limited, where chip maker INTEL claimed dilusion/blurring to the distinctive character of INTEL, the chipmaker by INTELMARK, a telephone marketing company. They both have trademarks respectively.
In "The World Intellectual Property Report BNA" dated 1/09 (ISSN 0952-7613),:

"...In one of the most significant parts of its decision, the ECJ found that the use of the later mark (INTELMARK) is, or would be, detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark requires evidence of a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered as a result of the use of the later mark, or a serious likelihood that such a change would occur in the future...."

This is highly unlikely given that the 1/2 the 18 - 30 male target audience is not of legal age to purchase beer. Look at the blogs all over, and you will easily see evidence that the other half overwhelmingly is not confused. Even among Monster Energy drinkers.

Do your homework.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

ehouwen — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:39:17 -0000

interesting, I cannot reply to Stephen (above) either.

Stephen, since you seem to know a great deal about Hansen, have they sued Red Robin Restaurants for their MONSTER SHAKE? obviously the same target market who we all can agree would easily be confused, thinking they are getting a MONSTER ENERGY shake. This would certainly seem to be a priority for product name infringement.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

ehouwen — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:10:27 -0000

Sam or Steve, since you seem to be on the in of the Monster Energy camp, can you possibly answer this: Has Hansen sued Red Robin Restaurants for their ® of "Monster Shake". This is obviously in the same non-alcoholic beverage category. If so, what was the outcome. If not, why? Much more of a threat than a beer from a business in a state who combined total population of 1/2 mil MIGHT consume 500,000 units of Brooklyn's Monster Ale, Vermonster Beer, monster cables, monster.com jobs or Ben & Jerry's Vermonster ice cream. I think we can all agree that Red Robin's Monster Shake is marketed to impressionable kids - kids who could quite reasonably be thinking it is a MONSTER ENERGY SHAKE.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

snax — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:49:01 -0000

You left out the main hashtag, #ISupportRockArt

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Name — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:28:38 -0000

Wow. Sam is a tool.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

thebeerwench — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:41:21 -0000

BLOGGERS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE UNITING TO SUPPORT ROCK ART BREWERY.

See what they are saying here: http://monsterboycott.wordp...

This blog was created to gather all the various blog posts about this issue into one centralized location.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Jason Harris — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:42:30 -0000

I think this is the same Joe who has been doing the same thing over at the Facebook page. I don't know what their intentions are but they are against our cause and are just repeating the same things. They sound like they were hired by Monster or Hansen or they are just people who already worked there.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Sam — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:44:05 -0000

Nothing is being omitted.

Hansen's trademark is for an energy drink, which is Category 32, light beverages.

Rock Art's trademark is for a beer, which is Category 32, light beverages.

People like you are so stupid.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Donna Maria — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:13:31 -0000

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Skatelle — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:09:26 -0000

Maybe they should try Odwalla's "B Monster" then.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

timbrauhn — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:09:15 -0000

"We run the show, people. We run it all." Ba da ba ba ba. Yes, I'm lovin' it.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Greg — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:39:14 -0000

Sam your'e a douche.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Sam — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:00:57 -0000

Case closed? Seriously you idiot: there is no beer category. The category is Category 32. Just because the application describes it as "beer" doesn't mean it fits into the "beer" category. It is still in the Light Beverage category.

What community college do you go to?

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Adam Nason — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:35:30 -0000

If there is no beer category then why does it say Goods & Services: Beer on Rock Art's trademark application? Clearly the company or the agency reviewing the application has determined that the trademark should be filed as 'beer' to differentiate from different product types. Monster doesn't have any trademarks associated with beer.

Case closed.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Sam — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:14:04 -0000

Asshole. I'm a trademark lawyer. No need to get off my "high horse." I'm riding it, and I know what I'm talking about, unlike yourself.

There is no category for beer. Both energy drinks and beer are in the same category - "light beverages" (Category 32, if I recall correctly).

Next...

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Grapes and Grains — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:04:12 -0000

Wow, what a load of shite this whole thing is. In my opinion, science will show that this caffeine/sugar/taurine-driven garbage will prove to be toxic...and the thought of our children guzzling it is an outrage...but this?!

I stand firm with Rock Art Brewery and am trying to rally my readers. Did a post on it here:
http://www.grapesandgrainsn...
Spread the word.
-David

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

time41 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:03:58 -0000

I am a Social Media user and I support Monster. VerMONSTER on a beverage is clearly misleading and an infringement on Monster's Trademark. This tiny brewery is trying to milk this for all it's worth. I hope Monster costs this idiot a bundle.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Stephen Jones — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:29:20 -0000

"An exception is made when a description or geographic term or a surname has acquired a secondary meaning, such a mark is registrable. A term or terms that have primary meaning of their own acquire a secondary meaning when, through long use in connection with a particular product, they have come to be known by the public as identifying the particular product and its origin. For example, the geographic term Philadelphia has acquired a secondary meaning when applied to cream cheese. It is widely accepted by the public as denoting a particular brand rather than any cream cheese made in Philadelphia. Factors considered by a court in determining whether a trademark has acquired secondary meaning are the amount and manner of advertising, volume of sales, lengh and manner of use, direct consumer testimony, and consumer surveys."

-Anderson's Business Law

It may be common, but it has a secondary meaning. Thus, able to be trademarked.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Adam Nason — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:27:22 -0000

re: Stephen above (why can't I reply to his reply?),

This is semantics then. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/...

However Hansen filed their trademarks, it is clear that it was not as an alcoholic beverage. It was clear that Rock Art filed theirs as an alcoholic beverage: "G & S: beer." That or the TESS is omitting pertinent info or misleading in how it is presenting it.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Stephen Jones — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:16:36 -0000

There is no beer category! there is a 'light beverage' and an 'alcoholic beverage' category! beer is in the light beverage category!

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Tersan Agos — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:02:09 -0000

Does it make even a little sense for a company to choose an extremely common word in the English language, and then attempt to block all other references to that word? If Hansen chose "Zazzlebrotz" for their energy drink, it would make sense for a lawsuit around the word "Ver-Zazzlebrozz" since it may attempt to confuse the brands in the minds of the consumer.

Hansen chose a common English word and thus their patent infringement claim is a nuisance case. That's why this is an abuse, since they are asserting their rights to control on all associations with the word, EVEN IN ADVANCE of their possible entry into alcoholic beverages. They are bullies, and it's a shame that you can buy legal action of this sort. It should be thrown out of court, and the lawyers fined for bring up a frivolous suit.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Adam Nason — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:29:36 -0000

Some of you really need to get off of your high horse. Have you actually looked at the trademarks?

Monster Energy does not own a trademark in the beer category. If it feared people associating any of the 30-40 beers out there with the word, "Monster" in it, then they would've trademarked the drink in the beer category a long-ass time ago. Instead they only trademarked it in the fruit and nutritional drinks category. They are going after Rock Art because they want to "some day" enter the alcoholic bev market.

Regardless, trademark law is broken if someone has to endure PR scrutiny for protecting its mark (meaning the public at large doesn't understand the system) but this is a case where Monster has no rights in the beer category and shouldn't be issuing C&D letters to those who do.

If categories don't matter, then Hansen could sue hundreds of companies with the name "Monster" in their names or products because of possible confusion that they are endorsing those products. Everyone would be suing each other and no one would make anything anymore.

See the timeline of this debacle here: http://beernews.org/2009/10...

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Name — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:17:09 -0000

What the fuck is wrong with the comments in this thread.

Wow, you're an asshole.

Re: Social Media Users Rally Behind Vermont Brewery vs Monster Energy Drink

Becky Grant — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:02:31 -0000

Yeah I second that! I have stayed up late so many times off energy drinks and have done some pretty crazy things I wouldn't normally do!