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

Punitive Damages for Infringement of Trade Dress by Delhi High Court in an Interim Application

By
Delhi High Court vide its Judgement dated 31st July 2018 in  Louboutin-3 case has granted permanent injunction and punitive damages against a Delhi based retailer for infringing the famed ‘Red Sole’ trademark of Christian Loubutin.  The Plaintiff‟s "RED SOLE" trademark, i.e. , wherein a specific tone of colour red (Pantone no. 18.1663TP) is applied to the outsole of a shoe, is unique in its own accord and became known in the world of fashion only after being introduced by the Plaintiff herein as their Trade Dress. The consumers in India identify the Plaintiff as the sole proprietor of the Christian Louboutin trademarks including the "RED SOLE" trademark and any use of the said trademarks by an unrelated entity will entail taking undue advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff, which has been built painstakingly over the several decades; The Defendants are located in Kamla Nagar Market, New Delhi, who were found to be dealing in infringing...
Post a Comment
Read more