Comments on: Monster Energy vs. BevReview.com

By: Watch Out for the Law Trolls | The Blog Herald

Watch Out for the Law Trolls | The Blog Herald — Fri, 20 May 2011 16:42:07 +0000

[...] other companies have take similar actions as well. Monster Energy Drinks, for example, hired an outside consulting firm to send threatening letters to a site that reviewed one of their be…. Also, some companies are famous for registering either incredibly generic trademarks or even the [...]

By: Review: Flathead Lake Monster Sour Cherry » Glass-bottled cherry soda with an average taste » BevReview.com

Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:02:01 +0000

[...] 22nd, 2010 by Steve Given BevReview's controversial history with reviewing items that have the word "Monster" in the title, we had to laugh when we saw a bottle of Flathead Lake Monster Sour Cherry on the shelf, denoted as [...]

By: Sara

Sara — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:19:24 +0000

You should accuse them of threatening you and intimidation. If this is the real Hansen company sue them.

By: J.T.

J.T. — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:48:19 +0000

If I worked for Hansen, I don't think I'd want you to "advertise" for me. . . . I don't think you're selling many of their drinks with your review ! I'd fire ya', not sue ya

Sorry for the hardship–I definitely think it falls under fair use laws, and since they sent you sodas as samples to review. . . I don't see what they're thinking. Hope it goes well for you in this.

By: Gigi

Gigi — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:53:08 +0000

I have to say that as a fellow review blogger I am horrified by this whole situation. I will not be buying Hansen products for personal use and certainly not for review from here on out.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:20:41 +0000

Ridiculous! Stay strong!

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:34:10 +0000

This is unreal. I can understand the protection of a name, but this seems to be (as was mentioned) simply a way to stop the flow of information. Not cool Hansen. Consider me an X customer.

By: terabitman

terabitman — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:27:02 +0000

You guys have a firm standing here with fair use – this is also clearly a form letter, you aren't selling anything. If I were in your place, my only response would be a link to this article, and an image of a middle finger. Don't give in to corporate bullies!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:07:14 +0000

IAAL, and the claim is boooooo-gus. They mean it, but they're off their rockers. Sounds like some scam-baiting is in order. Find out how much you can get them to pay you for the loss of goodwill you suffer when you sacrifice the integrity of your site by altering it, and all the hours you'll have to spend doing it. Go ahead, have some fun!

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:15:29 +0000

The point I made about images is there is a difference from the one image he self-took, versus the edited and changed image that is now a logo for something on this website… it went from being a legal right to use a picture you took without making enhancements, to using a trademarked image and making modifcations to suite your needs of a title image showing a "monsters vs bevreview" image… thats where I am saying the legal line gets fuzzy since you can't start using their property for your gain, being this website battle. Originally I saw no reason for them to say he was mis-using the image he took because it was his, but now edited it and using just the logo is incorrect… its like back in the cola war days pepsi and coke were BOTH stopped from using eachothers images in promotional material for the taste test wars because of this.