3 ms·
An "Apple" is a fruit, an "Oracle" is a mythological being, "Yahoo!" has been a slang exclamation for a century, etc, etc, etc. Trademark isn't about inventing
by StevePerkins 10y ago
An "Apple" is a fruit, an "Oracle" is a mythological being, "Yahoo!" has been a slang exclamation for a century, etc, etc, etc.
Trademark isn't about inventing new words. It's about one party at a time being able to use the same word as a brand within the same field. It's one of the few aspects of IP law that actually makes good sense.
- nitrogen 10y agoIt should be about that, but really ends up being big players stealing common words from the public vocabulary.
- StevePerkins 10y agoTrademarks aren't domain names. If you're not actively using it, you lose the legal protection. Moreover, if you allow your trademark to become "public vocabulary", then you lose it. "Aspirin" used to be a Bayer trademark. "Xerox" and "Kleenex" have to work really hard to discourage writers from using those brand names in a generic way, etc.
- curun1r 10y ago> It's about one party at a time being able to use the same word as a brand within the same field. That may be how it shakes out practically, but it's important to remember the motivation behind trademarks isn't to protect companies, it's to protect consumers from the confusion that ensues when two different entities use the same name. That may seem like a trivial distinction, but it can be important when evaluating a situation based on the spirit of the law. In this case, while the commercial entity may not want an open source project using the same name, that reuse is unlikely to cause confusion for consumers. However the merits of the case are largely irrelevant since a C&D on the part of the commercial entity would likely force a name change long before the courts were ever involved.