I posted previously about Rock Art Brewery and their legal troubles with beverage Goliath Hansen. You'll be happy to know the incident played out pretty much as predicted in my post. After receiving a considerable amount of bad press both online and off, Hansen dropped all demands on Rock Art. The Vermonster beer brand is no longer in jeopardy. Matt Nadeau posted a big thank you to all the people who blogged and Twittered on his behalf.
Matt would like us to support his derive for the reform of Trademark legislation. I don't think he'll have many takers on that, at least not the people who blogged on his behalf. I suspect they were more interested in the David vs. Goliath aspect of his dilemma than the actual legal ramifications. If you are interested in the case, Matt has posted the time line on his website. He concluded his comments saying:
"America,
you have contributed to a powerful tool, traditional media combined
with social media, what do you want to do with that tool as we move
forward?"
A good question. Now that we have seen the power we collectively have, how will we use it? We need to find our next digital damsel in distress. Let me know if you find one. I'll do my part to help rouse the troops again.
Do it for your brand and for our collective sanity
The old rules said that big companies with well-budgeted legal departments could quietly bully competitors and vendors into submission with the threat of litigation - regardless of their guilt or innocence. The new rules say you will do this at the peril of your brand.
This is exactly what is playing out in the peaceful village of Morrisville, Vermont (pop. 2,009). A microbrewery there named Rock Art has a beer called Vermonster. Hansen Beverage Co of California who markets and distributes Monster Energy Drink has filed a cease and desist letter against Rock Art. Hansen wants Rock Art to retire its Vermonster brand (for which is has a legal trademark) on the basis that it will cause confusion with the energy drink. Matt Nadeau, who owns the micro-brewery, feels Monster has no case. His lawyer agrees. However, tiny Rock Art would not be able to afford a legal battle against beverage-Goliath Hansen.
Five years ago, Nadeau would have no choice but to pull the brand from the shelves. Today, thanks to social media, Nadeau can put his case out in the court of public opinion. And that’s exactly what he has done. He has mobilized Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube in his defense as well as the company website.
There are few stories that spread as quick as David vs Goliath. This story is no exception. In just two days the outrage has spread from Morrisville to Mumbai and now to Malmö. The video has already received over 42,000 views. By comparison Monsters last TV spot aired on YouTube a year ago and has only received 20,000 views. Can you see who has the larger share of voice?
Protest groups have started up as well calling for a boycott of Monster Energy Drink. Two new Twitter hashtags have been introduced to show solidarity #boycottMonster and #monsterboycott.
I’m all for protection of trademarks, but this is nonsense. It is the result of an over zealous lawyer looking to justify this month’s retainer fee with little regard for anything else - including his client’s brand equity.
What that short-sighted lawyer knows nothing about is how the world works today. This type of bullying goes public immediately and is not tolerated by consumers or stockholders. My guess is you will see a compulsory social media Mia Culpa by Hansen as they frantically try to distance themselves from this debacle in the coming week.
So why should you join the boycott and spread the word? Because most of us are not Goliaths. We do not like these type of dirty tactics and "nuisance lawsuits" and for once we have a way to end it. So lets do it. Spread the word and perhaps Goliath and his lawyers with think twice about kicking the next David around.
BTW: Vermonster is also a name used by Ben & Jerry’s, also of Vermont. I’d like to see how many rounds the Monster brand could take in the ring of public opinion against the world’s most beloved ice cream brand.
Also based on Hansen's logic, I heard that Herman Munster is now considering litigation against the Monster brand on the basis that the energy drink may be confused with his 1960's sitcom.
Post to Twitter
