Skip to main content

Brewer Sued By Monster Energy Drink Asks America For Help

By
Matt Nadeau, the owner of a tiny Vermont brewery being sued by the makers of the Monster energy drink for brewing a beer called "Vermonster," has taken his case to the people. He says that trademark attorneys keep telling him the law is with him, but that he should just give up because it will be too expensive to litigate. "This is just about principle," Nadeau told the AP. "Corporate America can't be allowed to do this, in this day and age. It's just not right."

The dispute has arisen because Hansen, the maker of Monster Energy Drink wants to enter the alcoholic beverage market.

Source: http://consumerist.com/2009/10/brewer-sued-by-monster-energy-drink-asks-america-for-help.html

I have seen so many genuine users of trademark giving up just to avoid litigation.Is Might is right work always?
Labels:

Comments

  1. I-WIN IP ServicesMarch 12, 2010 at 5:23 PM

    Well, it is true that "Vermonster" and "Monster" are similar and Monster could say that consumers may think "Vermonster" is made my Monster and could create "confusion within the marketplace".



    Maybe this guy had the rights first. Hansen's may back down. These are often just warnings.



    Now, some small business owners are just stupid. I read a story recently about one who opened a sandwich shop named "STEAKWAYS" and was stunned when "SUBWAY" sued him. He lost and he knew damn well people would relate one to the other when he named his business. He even used a similar logo.


    A comment by PLATTWORX at http://consumerist.com/2009/10/brewer-sued-by-monster-energy-drink-asks-america-for-help.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

IPAB has allowed an appeal and granted patent to Pfizer for Tofacitinib and its salts

By
                                                    In a decision dated 21st August 2020 IPAB vide its  Order  has allowed an appeal and granted Patent  to Appellant M/s. PFIZER PRODUCTS INC., USA  for Tofacitinib and its salts. The appeal is against the   order dated 3 rd  September 2015 passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Indian Patents Act, whereby the Appellant’s Indian patent application no. 00991/MUMNP/2003 was rejected on the ground that it is hit by section 13(1)(b) and being non-patentable under section 3(d). The Appellant requested for an urgent hearing of the matter and IPAB considered the request for urgent hearing and passed the present order.  This Patent application claimed the compound 3-{(3R,4R)-4-Methyl-3-[methyl-(7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-yl)-amino]-piper...
Post a Comment
Read more

Tata's Herbal Tea fails to get patent protection

By
The patent office has refused to grant a patent to Tata Global Beverages (formerly known as Tata Tea) for its 'invention' regarding a process for preparation of flavoured herbal tea. Based on the opposition filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and TATA Tea failed to provide sufficiency of disclosure of the invention the Controller of Patents refused to grant patent.   Tata Global  Beverages, the patent application has claimed a new flavoured herbal tea composition comprising 1% to 8% of Darjeeling Broken, 10% to 50% of flavour concentrate and the rest being tea particles. Tata Global Beverages had submitted the patent filing without appropriate clarification for the unique taste for the tea composition. It was unable to find out the technical advancement of the application as compared to the existing knowledge. Thus controller had to refuse the grant of patent. Source:  http://www.financialexpress.com/article/markets/commodities/tata-global-bev...
Post a Comment
Read more

Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh Tenure as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) extended for Another three months

By
  The Supreme Court on September 16, 2020 has extended the tenure of Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board)  for another three months.  Justice Manmohan Singh was appointed on July 2017 for a term of three years.  However as per the rules governing the appointment his term would come to an end on attaining retirement age of 65 years on 22nd September 2019. Since Government has not appointed any Chairman thereafter, on a Petition by International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) the Supreme Court has extended his term for another year i.e, till 21st September 2020 as the Petitioner claimed that IPAB will be Defunct with his retirement thereby causing hardship several litigants. The Central Government has notified in March 2020 that Justice Singh will continue as the chairman of IPAB up to September 21, 2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.  Now with this extension, Ho...
Post a Comment
Read more