3 ms·

> Unlike copyright or patents, trademarks are not there to protect the "owner" of the trademark in principle. It's there to protect consumers. That's not how t

> Unlike copyright or patents, trademarks are not there to protect the "owner" of the trademark in principle. It's there to protect consumers. That's not how trademarks work. A trademark is registered by the owner and the trademark has to be defended by the owner. If someone sells something under the brand name Birkenstock, it's not some consumer protection organization that will sue, but it is up to the owner of the trademark to defend it. If trademarks only existed to protect consumers, there would be different mechanisms in place.

snowwrestler 9y ago
Huge swaths of consumer protection are enforced through private lawsuits. Don't confuse the mechanism with the policy goal. Yes, it is up to trademark owners to defend their trademarks. But the reason they are empowered to do so under the law is because the public has an interest in feeling confident that they know who they are buying from.
- _fizz_buzz_ 9y ago
  Don't get hung up on my point about the mechanism. The general point is that trademark law is a lot more like a property (protecting the owner) than a consumer protection law. When I own a trademark, I can do anything I can do with any property. I can use it myself, I can sell it to someone else, I can license it someone else, I may even license it to someone that makes a different product (with some restrictions). When you buy sunglasses with the Versace trademark, you won't get anything produced by Versace or invented by them or quality controlled by them, or with warranty from them.
will_brown 9y ago
The consumer may not have a cause of action for trademark violation if they buy counterfeit product (as you say, it's not their right to enforce) but the consumer has other potential causes of action against the seller of counterfeit goods, including but not limited to: breach of contract, unjust enrichment and deceptive trade practices. Moreover, there are significant issues related to the tort of defective products, say you buy a counterfeit apple branded iPhone charge, if said charger catches on fire and burns your house down (and the charger itself), then based on preponderance of the evidence Apple could be found liable as the manufacturer of the counterfeit defective product.

snowwrestler 9y ago

Huge swaths of consumer protection are enforced through private lawsuits. Don't confuse the mechanism with the policy goal. Yes, it is up to trademark owners to defend their trademarks. But the reason they are empowered to do so under the law is because the public has an interest in feeling confident that they know who they are buying from.

_fizz_buzz_ 9y ago
Don't get hung up on my point about the mechanism. The general point is that trademark law is a lot more like a property (protecting the owner) than a consumer protection law. When I own a trademark, I can do anything I can do with any property. I can use it myself, I can sell it to someone else, I can license it someone else, I may even license it to someone that makes a different product (with some restrictions). When you buy sunglasses with the Versace trademark, you won't get anything produced by Versace or invented by them or quality controlled by them, or with warranty from them.

will_brown 9y ago

The consumer may not have a cause of action for trademark violation if they buy counterfeit product (as you say, it's not their right to enforce) but the consumer has other potential causes of action against the seller of counterfeit goods, including but not limited to: breach of contract, unjust enrichment and deceptive trade practices. Moreover, there are significant issues related to the tort of defective products, say you buy a counterfeit apple branded iPhone charge, if said charger catches on fire and burns your house down (and the charger itself), then based on preponderance of the evidence Apple could be found liable as the manufacturer of the counterfeit defective product.