Another reason not to buy Monster Cables

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Doug Jacobs (djacobs@shell.rawbw.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of copyrights.

This is a *very* bad understanding of copyright law, because it doesn't
apply at all here.

> "Monster Cable" is the copyright

No, it's a trademark, which has very different laws compared to copyright.

The two biggest differences are:

- copyright automatically is granted to you at time of creation of the
material with no registration required, while you *must* register a
trademark with the government in order to protect it

- you do *not* need to aggressively enforce your copyright at all times to
be able to do so at some time in the future, while you generally need to
for trademarks

These basic differences mean that (as an example):

- the instant Disney puts one of their movies (say, "Toy Story") on DVD,
that DVD is protected by copyright, but the stylized "Toy Story" logo
on the cover of the DVD is *not* protected as a trademark until it is
registered with the government, and can *never* be protected under
copyright law

- just because Disney doesn't go after "casual" copying of their movies
on DVD, they have no change in the status of their copyright when they
go after "professional pirates", but if they don't hunt down everybody
that uses the "Toy Story" logo without their permission, the trademark
protection of that logo weakens

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/LostNetworkPassword.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Doug Jacobs (djacobs@shell.rawbw.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of copyrights.
>
>
> This is a *very* bad understanding of copyright law, because it doesn't
> apply at all here.

D'oh, of course you are correct. In fact to support copyright
protection many folks use the trick of sending themselves a letter with
the copyrightable material in it. This not only proves the date of the
copyright, it also makes it a federal issue since it traveled in the US
mail system. I think there are some other benefits, but I don't recall
them right now.

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <cs0d40$1c14$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, Randy S.
<rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> Jeff Rife wrote:
> > Doug Jacobs (djacobs@shell.rawbw.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >
> >>I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of copyrights.
> >
> >
> > This is a *very* bad understanding of copyright law, because it doesn't
> > apply at all here.
>
> D'oh, of course you are correct. In fact to support copyright
> protection many folks use the trick of sending themselves a letter with
> the copyrightable material in it. This not only proves the date of the
> copyright, it also makes it a federal issue since it traveled in the US
> mail system. I think there are some other benefits, but I don't recall
> them right now.

Just make sure you send it to yourself registered.

I'm sure everybody here has heard of the United States Olympic
Committee going after diners and flower shops that use the words
"Olympic" and "Olympia" in their names. (We're not talking about the
five-ring logo. Just the words.) No chance of confusion there, of
course; it's just blatant bullying.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, oscargrouch <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote:
> i would suggest they either got something that was financially or legally
> significant or both, or why would they have settled and not continued
> pursuing their case in court...

In order to show that they police their trademark, which would be
necessary in the event it was alleged that the word has become generic.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:

> I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of copyrights.

You are obcviously interested in this subject, but you are very confused.
There are some excellent FAQs out there.


> "Monster Cable" is the copyright - not "monster" by itself because it's a
> common noun.

You cannot copyright a short phrase like that. You mean trademark. And
one certainly can trademark a common word, in a fanciful context, under
certain conditions. The extent of one's rights is a legitemate question
in such circumstances.

This is why you see drug manufacturers coming up with new
> "words" that can immediatly copyright when introducing a new product.

This is done because nonsense words (like "Kodak") give you more rights,
and not because dictionary words cannot form a protectable mark.


> Likewise, it's "Microsoft Windows" not just "Windows" even though that's how
> many refer to the product. Otherwise, you'd have stupid things like
> Microsoft suing every company that makes "wood or metal enclsures for glass
> aperatures" if you get my drift...

You know next to nothing about the extent of a trademark. Read a good
FAQ or two.


> Furthermore, even if you copyrighted the name "Monster" does not mean that
> NO ONE can ever use that word again. For instance, "Monsters Inc" the
> movie is not a copyright infringement because it's in a different industry
> and context.

This pretty much contradicts what you said in the previous paragraph, eh?

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Randy S. <rswittNO@spamgmail.com> wrote:


> Here I believe you are totally correct. If a common word is used in a
> dfferent context *even* if it is copyrighted, they have the right to use
> it, as long as there is little or no chance of confusion w/ the
> copyrighted use of the name. Hence "Monster's Inc." has virtually no
> chance of confusion w/ Monster cable and is in a totally different
> industry and they should have no real case against it.

Thee are exceptions even to your example, in the case of certain "strong"
marks.

> use. Hence if a diner was named "McDonalds" before McDonalds
> copyrighted the name, they could continue to use the name, but they
> could not open any Diners w/ that name outside of their local market (I
> believe this example actually happened, and McDonalds sued and lost, but
> my memory may be less than perfect here).

This all hinges on the interface between common law trademarks and the
federal staturoy scheme. It is a complicated area of the law.


--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>>Here I believe you are totally correct. If a common word is used in a
>>dfferent context *even* if it is copyrighted, they have the right to use
>>it, as long as there is little or no chance of confusion w/ the
>>copyrighted use of the name. Hence "Monster's Inc." has virtually no
>>chance of confusion w/ Monster cable and is in a totally different
>>industry and they should have no real case against it.
>
>
> Thee are exceptions even to your example, in the case of certain "strong"
> marks.
>
>
>>use. Hence if a diner was named "McDonalds" before McDonalds
>>copyrighted the name, they could continue to use the name, but they
>>could not open any Diners w/ that name outside of their local market (I
>>believe this example actually happened, and McDonalds sued and lost, but
>>my memory may be less than perfect here).
>
>
> This all hinges on the interface between common law trademarks and the
> federal staturoy scheme. It is a complicated area of the law.

You obviously know much more about this than I do (seriously). I guess
the question is, is my general idea at least in the right direction?

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> - copyright automatically is granted to you at time of creation of the
> material with no registration required, while you *must* register a
> trademark with the government in order to protect it

Nope.



--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

(EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> > - copyright automatically is granted to you at time of creation of the
> > material with no registration required, while you *must* register a
> > trademark with the government in order to protect it
>
> Nope.

Yep.

As for the first part, copyright absolutely is conferred at time of
creation, with no registering required...you don't even need to put a
"Copyright" notice/symbol on the work. Doing those things helps if you
need to fight, but they aren't necessary.

Sure, you can fight other people about your "trademark" without
registering (because you can sue anyone for anything), but because
trademarks are such simple things (compared to items that fall under
copyright law), you generally have almost no leg to stand on.

The only time registering isn't necessary is when the infringement is
directly confusing. Apple Records probably would have had no chance of
winning when they went after Apple Computers (for the first time) if they
had not registered their trademark. The dozens (hundreds?) of companies
that sold apples (the fruit) and used an apple as a logo would have
diluted the symbol so much that even filing would have been insane.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/DoomedProject.jpg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Randy S. <rswittNO@spamgmail.com> wrote:

> D'oh, of course you are correct. In fact to support copyright
> protection many folks use the trick of sending themselves a letter with
> the copyrightable material in it. This not only proves the date of the
> copyright, it also makes it a federal issue since it traveled in the US
> mail system. I think there are some other benefits, but I don't recall
> them right now.

This is a commonly believed urban legend.

What if I produced an envelope mailed in 1960, and then, in 1965,
scrawled out the lyrics to "I Want to Hold Your Hand", put them in the
envelope and sealed it?

Wuold this be proof of ... anything?

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

then that would be legally significant


<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:cs0rrh$r57$5@reader2.panix.com...
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, oscargrouch <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > i would suggest they either got something that was financially or
legally
> > significant or both, or why would they have settled and not continued
> > pursuing their case in court...
>
> In order to show that they police their trademark, which would be
> necessary in the event it was alleged that the word has become generic.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In alt.video.ptv.tivo EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:

> > I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of copyrights.

> You are obcviously interested in this subject, but you are very confused.
> There are some excellent FAQs out there.

*smacks forehead*

Oops, confused "copyright" and "trademark".

Still, this is an obvious harrasment suit by Monster Cable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Randy S. <rswittNO@spamgmail.com> wrote:

> I guess
> the question is, is my general idea at least in the right direction?

Yep. Pretty much spot on.

This has got all the basic stuff:

http/www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> Sure, you can fight other people about your "trademark" without
> registering (because you can sue anyone for anything), but because
> trademarks are such simple things (compared to items that fall under
> copyright law), you generally have almost no leg to stand on.

To own a trademark in the United States all you need to do is be the
first to use it in trade and make continuous use of the mark thereafter.
The manner of use required is (1) to use it in interstate commerce, and
(2) in a way that permits consumers to distinguish your particular goods
and services from those of another producer. Trademarks based solely upon
first use are referred to as common law trademarks, and receive
protection under the common law (i.e. court-made law). Trademarks that
are registered with the state or federal government receive additional
protection under state and federal statutes which provide benefits beyond
the protection available under the common law. Thus, the purpose of
registration is not to acquire trademarks, but rather to enhance the
already existing rights associated with a common law trademark.

http/www.marklaw.com/trademark-FAQ/faqacq.htm

> The only time registering isn't necessary is when the infringement is
> directly confusing.

See above.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

(EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> > Sure, you can fight other people about your "trademark" without
> > registering (because you can sue anyone for anything), but because
> > trademarks are such simple things (compared to items that fall under
> > copyright law), you generally have almost no leg to stand on.
>
> To own a trademark in the United States all you need to do is be the
> first to use it in trade and make continuous use of the mark thereafter.
> The manner of use required is (1) to use it in interstate commerce, and
> (2) in a way that permits consumers to distinguish your particular goods
> and services from those of another producer. Trademarks based solely upon
> first use are referred to as common law trademarks, and receive
> protection under the common law (i.e. court-made law). Trademarks that
> are registered with the state or federal government receive additional
> protection under state and federal statutes which provide benefits beyond
> the protection available under the common law. Thus, the purpose of
> registration is not to acquire trademarks, but rather to enhance the
> already existing rights associated with a common law trademark.

And, this pretty much says what I said.

Unless a "common law" trademark is very unique, you can't protect it
against similar use by non-related companies.

Similarly, designs, drawings, and symbols that are unique can be protected
with no registration, but registering allows you even more control.
Without registration, you can only prevent people from using similar
marks that are confusing. With registration, you can prevent them from
using *your* mark (or designs that bear a strong resemblance to your mark),
even if the intent is not to confuse.

> http/www.marklaw.com/trademark-FAQ/faqacq.htm
>
> > The only time registering isn't necessary is when the infringement is
> > directly confusing.
>
> See above.

You mean where it agrees with me in substance. Sure.

|> Thus, the purpose of
|> registration is not to acquire trademarks, but rather to enhance the
|> already existing rights associated with a common law trademark.

Note that this part of the quoted page contains misleading information.

If I attempt to register a trademark, this means that other, similar
trademarks are seached as "previous works" (to use copyright law lingo).
I can't register something that is confusing. On the other hand, once
registered, this "locks out" other people from regsistering for the same
reason. Thus, registration *is* used to acquire trademarks.

Basically, this means that "Joe's Cables" could have started in 1930 and
used that name and some logo for 40 years but never registered. In 1970,
"Joe's Cable and A/V Supply" registers their brand-new logo as with the
trademark office. Unless "Joe's Cables" was big enough to come to the
notice of the prior art search, it's likely the registration for "Joe's
Cable and A/V Supply" would go through.

Then, if "Joe's Cables" tries to register, they would be denied based on
confusion, and it's their fault for not protecting their own trademark
by previous registration. Again, we see that registration *is* used to
acquire trademarks, at least in a de facto sense.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TiVoForRealLife.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:

> Oops, confused "copyright" and "trademark".

Yep.


> Still, this is an obvious harrasment suit by Monster Cable.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.


--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <cs1f9h$7fq$2@reader2.panix.com>,
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com says...
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> > Oops, confused "copyright" and "trademark".
>
> Yep.
>
>
> > Still, this is an obvious harrasment suit by Monster Cable.
>
> Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

Indeed, from the sounds of it, the legal firm has 'carte blanche'
instructions to 'Find people infringing our trademark, and proceed
against them'.

To the point that the legal firm, does its own research, and when it
finds a shred of something it can file suit on (or start billing hours
on), it starts by sending a message indicating that 'our client has
instructed us to notify you that your use of the word Monster has been
deemed an infringement on their trademark...cease and desist...or pay us
cash' without even notifying Monster about it, beyond as a line item in
their next invoice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> (EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Sure, you can fight other people about your "trademark" without
> > > registering (because you can sue anyone for anything), but because
> > > trademarks are such simple things (compared to items that fall under
> > > copyright law), you generally have almost no leg to stand on.
> >
> > To own a trademark in the United States all you need to do is be the
> > first to use it in trade and make continuous use of the mark thereafter.
> > The manner of use required is (1) to use it in interstate commerce, and
> > (2) in a way that permits consumers to distinguish your particular goods
> > and services from those of another producer. Trademarks based solely upon
> > first use are referred to as common law trademarks, and receive
> > protection under the common law (i.e. court-made law). Trademarks that
> > are registered with the state or federal government receive additional
> > protection under state and federal statutes which provide benefits beyond
> > the protection available under the common law. Thus, the purpose of
> > registration is not to acquire trademarks, but rather to enhance the
> > already existing rights associated with a common law trademark.

> And, this pretty much says what I said.

OK. If you say so.

> Unless a "common law" trademark is very unique, you can't protect it
> against similar use by non-related companies.

OK.

> Similarly, designs, drawings, and symbols that are unique can be protected
> with no registration, but registering allows you even more control.
> Without registration, you can only prevent people from using similar
> marks that are confusing. With registration, you can prevent them from
> using *your* mark (or designs that bear a strong resemblance to your mark),
> even if the intent is not to confuse.

Sure.

> > http/www.marklaw.com/trademark-FAQ/faqacq.htm
> >
> > > The only time registering isn't necessary is when the infringement is
> > > directly confusing.
> >
> > See above.

> You mean where it agrees with me in substance. Sure.

> |> Thus, the purpose of
> |> registration is not to acquire trademarks, but rather to enhance the
> |> already existing rights associated with a common law trademark.

> Note that this part of the quoted page contains misleading information.

If you say so.

> If I attempt to register a trademark, this means that other, similar
> trademarks are seached as "previous works" (to use copyright law lingo).
> I can't register something that is confusing. On the other hand, once
> registered, this "locks out" other people from regsistering for the same
> reason. Thus, registration *is* used to acquire trademarks.

You can quibble about the meaning of "acquire", and I won't argue.

> Basically, this means that "Joe's Cables" could have started in 1930 and
> used that name and some logo for 40 years but never registered. In 1970,
> "Joe's Cable and A/V Supply" registers their brand-new logo as with the
> trademark office. Unless "Joe's Cables" was big enough to come to the
> notice of the prior art search, it's likely the registration for "Joe's
> Cable and A/V Supply" would go through.

> Then, if "Joe's Cables" tries to register, they would be denied based on
> confusion, and it's their fault for not protecting their own trademark
> by previous registration. Again, we see that registration *is* used to
> acquire trademarks, at least in a de facto sense.

Now it is "acquire ... in a de facto sense". Do go on.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

(EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> OK. If you say so.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
> Sure.
>
>
> If you say so.
>
>
> Now it is "acquire ... in a de facto sense". Do go on.

So, you just pretty much had one source that you didn't completely
understand, and now you don't know what to say. Got it.

--
Jeff Rife |
| "Resistance...is *futile*"
|
| -- Data, "Star Trek: First Contact"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <cs1f9h$7fq$2@reader2.panix.com>,
> EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com says...
> > In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Oops, confused "copyright" and "trademark".
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> >
> > > Still, this is an obvious harrasment suit by Monster Cable.
> >
> > Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

> Indeed, from the sounds of it, the legal firm has 'carte blanche'
> instructions to 'Find people infringing our trademark, and proceed
> against them'.

> To the point that the legal firm, does its own research, and when it
> finds a shred of something it can file suit on (or start billing hours
> on), it starts by sending a message indicating that 'our client has
> instructed us to notify you that your use of the word Monster has been
> deemed an infringement on their trademark...cease and desist...or pay us
> cash' without even notifying Monster about it, beyond as a line item in
> their next invoice.

Again, you impute malice into the situation, even as you acknowlege that
Monster is unlikely the party responsible for it.

My guess would be the same instructions, but given to a senior partner
who pawns off the assignment on a junior associate, and then fails to
properly supervise him. But that is just a guess.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower