Behringer Submitted Trademarks For Over 10 Synthesizers Including The MONOPOLY

SYNTH ANATOMY uses affiliation & partner programs (big red buttons) to finance a part of the activity. If you use these, you support the website. Thanks! 

Behringer has submitted a trademark application for the name MONOPOLY in the EU & USA, so a Korg Mono/Poly Synthesizer clone is coming.

Update: sorry I missed something. Not only the MONOPOLY was registered at the Trademark but many others.  Blue MarvinKobolPolykobolPolivoksSynthexTridentQuadraSourceProdigyLoganPro-16Pro-800

No one was as active in the synthesizer market this year as Behringer. New products are the MS-1, Pro-1, K-2, TD-3, or the RD-8 Drum Machine. Yesterday they released a “bee”hringer teaser that teases the replica of the Wasp Synthesizer. Now, I have information that proves that another Japanese Synthesizer is on the list.

After the K-2 (MS-20 clone), Behringer will re-build the Korg Monopoly. No, not the family game Monopoly from Hasbro. For this one finds clear references on the trademark organization websites. They transmitted on 18 September 2019 a trademark application to the EU for the name MONOPOLY. Also in the USA, Musictribe (Behringer) has filed a trademark application for the same name

Behringer Monopoly Trademark USA.001 Behringer Monopoly trademark EU.001
Behringer Monopoly USA


Source: Trademarks Justia 88280492

Korg Monopoly
Photo credits:

KORG Mono/Poly

The Korg Mono/Poly is a mono-polyphonic analog Synthesizer that was manufactured from 1981 to 1984. It features four voltage-controlled oscillators, a 4-pole, self-oscillating lowpass filter, several modulation capabilities, and offers paraphonic playbility (pseudo polyphony).

Further, it has 1 VCA per voice, 2 ADSR envelopes (filter, amp) and two LFO’s with individual rates.

What Does That Mean?

At the moment we know that Behringer has sent two Trademark applications for the name MONOPOLY (with sources) which clearly points to a Korg Mono / Poly clone. What it will look like is not known at this time.

But it is well known that Synthesizer friends around the world have long been wishing for a KORG Mono/Poly re-issue from the Japanese. As with the wishes with the TR-808 in analogue with Roland, Uli Behringer now also realizes the wish of the musicians. Stay tuned for more detailed information in the near future.

More information will follow: Behringer

Behringer Synthesizers are available at our partner


Hardware Synthesizer News


  1. I mean Uli steals everything he can, why not steal some more. Why do you think he fled Germany, where he was convicted of multiple counts of IP theft (and where they enforce it) and ran for Asia where they look the other way? If someone didn’t design it, Uli can’t do it.

  2. Pick up the phone, call and ask Korg, Sequential Circuits and Moog what they think of this attempted theft from Behringer. The USPTO (US Copyright and Trademark Office) should deny these claims as clearly these are the intellectual property of the preceding companies already. But Behringer knows that some things can fall through the cracks, and this is what this is all about. They will likely pick up Trademarks for the names above from companies that have gone under.

    Behringer’s first product, the MX 8000, simply copied the Mackie design circuit by circuit and put it out as their own. Mackie sued them but lost because the circuit design is not covered by copyright law. Behringer of course knew this going in. So this is Behringer’s model then and still today, just steal someone else’s design, and slap your name on it.

    So with Behringer running around copying designs and producing them in their mammoth tech city built in China, where they can create products for less than any other part of the world, am I going to invest heavily in a new and innovative product knowing that, if it is a game changing success, Behringer will be right there to steal it out from under us, legally.

    We need to be very careful and should be very weary of supporting Behringer. Yes they have the power to produce products for dirt cheap but at what price? Behringer is like a cancer in the music industry. They literally feed on innovation and destroy it in the long run.

    • That is hardly true, what they have been doing is putting out things that the original manufacturers have abandoned. People have been waiting decades for Roland to reissue things like the 808 and 909, Roland’s response has been to reluctantly put out toy digital versions. I haven’t got $4000 to spend on an original TR-808 but I would have happily dropped $1000 on a reissued one at any point in the last 20 years. I haven’t got $4000 to spend on a Moog Model D but I had $300 to spend on a Behringer copy but if I had the $4000 spare I would buy the Moog instead of 13 Behringers. Behringer come along seeing a lot of holes in the market and are happy to fill it and at a knockdown price too. It would be a lot fairer if these original companies would license their designs to Behringer which would make their reissue a lot easier but I get the idea most of them are not interested in it, I would be happy to pay extra for this and I think a lot of other people would be too. And let’s not forget small companies have been cloning things like the Roland TB-303 And the Arp 2600 for years without anyone getting upset.

      • What absolute rubbish Dave. Did Korg abandon the MS-20 or the Odyssey? NO! Both reissued, better than ever, selling stronger than ever – and Behringer ripped them off. Please get out more.

    • Your comment is retarded. You invent something, you fill an application for a patent, you got it, you have a monopoly for the discovery for 20 years and then after everybody can copy your invention. It works like that for the whole industry, look at the pharmaceutical industry the day the patent fall you have generic flooding the market. It never stops company from doing research, in fact that’s the opposite if you could have a never ending monopoly on a blockbuster why would bother to spend money on R&D for an uncertain result if you already have a successful product.

    • “Concerned Music DeveloperP” Behringer is not the 1st company to clone a Moog, Sequential Circuits, or Roland design. This has been debunked many times over. People just want to judge Behringer from their high horse while ignoring other clones. You really have no clue.

      Ensure Sound Prodigy ER-16 module (Moog Prodigy clone), System 80 880 (Roland 808 clone), Cyclone Analogic TT-303 (Roland 303 clone), the entire 5U modular industry. Studio Electronics uses Roland, Moog, and Arp designs in a lot of their products and they use resell minimoogs once upon a time. I just saw Roland and Sequential Circuit eurorack clones from one DIY maker. A few people still do Polivoks designs… Should i continue? This is stuff you can buy, right now!

      People asked for clones and Behringer has obliged. People shouldn’t be way of Behringer for cloning 30 – 40 year old designs, they should be wary of YOU and your misleading and false statements.

  3. Fair enough,guys,Behringer does have dubious practices, but they are creating instruments other companies have no interest in recreating; especially korg.
    To be able to play,let alone purchase,an ARP Quadra or VCS3 is nigh-on impossible for most people; but not with Behringer.

    • What do you mean Korg has no interest in recreating? Give it a break. They reissued the MS-20, a new and improved version that has been selling so well so Behringer ripped it off. Korg brought back Odyssey, improved it by including all filters – so Behringer ripped it off. “Especially Korg”?!

  4. According the latest statistics Behringer is almost 3 times bigger than Korg, so in reality this is just bullying. They pretend to be Robin Hood but they are bullies and thieves.

  5. You can’t be a thive of there is no stealing…

    To steal something it has belong to someone. If the patent is no more valid then anyone is able to use it.
    This is also why Korg and others can’t license their patent for such old hardware to anyone since the do not belong to them anymore.

    I you need to spit your anger at someone feel free to contact those who made these laws!

    And it is a very good thing that patents are time limited or else everyone on Earth would have to buy their car/computers/fridge/whatever to their first patent owner.

    Look at the bright side of it : Analog synths at 300$ however that I may understand that if you’re the proud owner of one the original ones and used to the tremendously crazy after market prices you may feel sorry because you won’t be able to sell your stuff for a lot of $$$ anymore… But I’m pretty sure you’re the exact same people who say that the orignal sound is so muche better that you won’t regret to keep it, will you?

  6. A personal opinion from a fellow gear addict:

    My definition would be that Behringer doesn’t make clones, they make knock-off. Some good ones, some other less good… there is a lot of our personal opinion and tolerances into that too!

    For me, they appropriate for their sole commercial benefit the marketing effort that other brands, inventors or group of people or movement put in to make what those instruments have become. Most of what Behringer does is legal however I find it highly unethical.

    I dont buy B. because I dont want to support a behaviour I see as unethical but I also understand why other do buy those as I myself would love an 808 and 909 and Pro-1… temptation is as high as the price of those old gems (I bought an original SH-101 instead of these 3, some will call me stupid ahah, I am happy with my choice and approach as I am sure you are too and I totally respect it).

    But is it really the real deal or are we fooled? Well I guess that depends on our personal taste.
    For me they are knock-off (not clone), some are close but they are not the real deal and some are pretty far off in my personal opinion…. But I totally respect your ears may have a different point of ears!

    If the instrument you make is good though, then why does it have to be branded with someone else codes or name (even if it’s legally available or feasible) if it’s not purely for capitalistic reasons though? That’s why I dont buy into those knock-off.

    But yeah, I am not here to give lessons, just to share my personal opinion

    What do you think?
    Hope you find the point of view interesting. Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention.

    For the folks at Behringer, it’s a business strategy, I get it, if it works for you, good for you.
    its mostly your right to do it. It’s my right to disagree, find it unethical and not to support!

  7. Comparing it to the pharmaceutical industry was the winner in a line of poor arguments. When a patent’s coverage period has ended, sure, it’s fair game. But the one thing mentioned in these comments that is more accurate is that they’re not ‘clones’, they’re knock-offs. And that’s certainly how they started, but just ask anyone who’s been burned by behringer and they’ll say, they’re BAD knock-offs. They aren’t taking an old design and improving upon it, or even changing it in any meaningful way, they’re just knocking off designs, but with dirt cheap, questionable quality parts. Kudos to them, they built the perfect peoples republic of behringer to build it under, no better way to drive costs down as low as humanly possible while driving white-knuckle work force speed. They’re shameless, and that’s what gets people. It’s great for all the people with little money to get a knock-off model D they can put they’re hands on, sure. They’re not a pfizer whose r&d cost goes on to benefit the world, but whose price also gets passed down the pipepline. They claim to fill a market need, but is it really a need when they have to issue lawsuits and cease and desist letters to REAL innovators to stop them from criticizing them? Behringer offers nothing to the legacy and life of synthesizers. Down the road, they won’t be remembered, because they’ll all break by then anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.