Monster Energy Drink attacks small Vermont Microbrewery

[Edcculus]

Link to the article

This discussion has been going on over at the homebrew foum I visit. Monster Energy drink, and parent company Hansen Beverage sent the owners of Rock Art Brewing Co. a cease and desist to get them to stop using the name "Vermonster" on their Barleywine. This is corporate greed at its worst. Hansen claims to want to get into the beer industry, and doesn't want consumers to get confused! Rock Art has the name Vermonster trademarked in the state of Vermont. The owner suspects his filing for national trademark spurred this law suit.

I'm sure Hansens was expecting to steamroll Rock Art since they can't afford the legal fees. I think this is a shame, and that big companies can abuse our legal system like this.

 

[Carlin]

Lol! IMHO Monster energy drink is pretty tasty, but this is messed up what they are doing. If Vermonster is already trademarked, too late, so sad.

 

[the beav]

I think that if Rock Art wanted to file for a US trademark, a patent lawyer would research the name for about $1500 and decide if the trademark would likely be approved or not. I'm not a lawyer but have investigated getting my own trademark approved, and from what little I know, I don't think that Hansens would have a winnable lawsuit.

Hansens should be careful. I know of a group of people who sued another company and that other company spent over one million dollars defending themselves. The suit went to arbitration and the people who brought on the lawsuit lost easily. Now, and unexpectedly for them, they are being countersued for the $1+ million that the other side spent defending themselves. Since the countersuit is being done in the home state of the people who brought on the countersuit, they have a good chance of winning. And if they do, the other side will lose most of everything they own.

 

[Edcculus]

I think that if Rock Art wanted to file for a US trademark, a patent lawyer would research the name for about $1500 and decide if the trademark would likely be approved or not.

Yea, I have no clue about the specifics. Thats what I remember reading. I just think this is frivilous and a shame that these big companies even care to push the little guys around. Vermonster is more of a play on the state name than on the name "monster".

Watch out Cookie Monster, Hansens is coming for you!

 

[SpyvSpy]

I think monster is freaking nasty. The only thing I like from them is the coffee drinks.

 

[gollum83]

Yea, I have no clue about the specifics. Thats what I remember reading. I just think this is frivilous and a shame that these big companies even care to push the little guys around. Vermonster is more of a play on the state name than on the name "monster".

Watch out Cookie Monster, Hansens is coming for you!

Well anyone with half a brain could have figured that out. So that means these idiots over are Hansens have what? A quarter of a brain? At least its nice to see that beverage distributers in Vermont are supporting their local microbreweries.

 

[b.read]

I just glanced at the paragraph and somehow my brain gathered that the two companies joined forces and made a Barleywine/Energy drink...UGH! Glad that's not the case...I think Rock Art should be fine.

 

[bluefoxicy]

Monster Energy drink, and parent company Hansen Beverage sent the owners of Rock Art Brewing Co. a cease and desist to get them to stop using the name "Vermonster" on their Barleywine.

They're full of s%%%.

"Monster" is a generic term. "Monster Energy Drink" is a particular product. As beer is not an energy drink, we're talking about two products. Now, a "Monster" beer would be arguable (a drink); however, a beer called "Black Monster" or "Vermont Monster" or whatever would not, as "Monster" is a pretty generic descriptive term.

Think about the term "Photoshopping." Adobe doesn't like people turning their trademark into a verb, because it becomes a generic term. This means you can use the trademark "Photoshop" in literature where it would be otherwise subject to trademark law, i.e. "Do a professional grade photoshop job without the expense of other high-end professional grade software" would be arguably legal without paying royalties.

That's a hard argument right there, but a very real one that could definitely land in court. Now think about starting with a term such as "Monster" and not doing anything unique.