4 ms·
> t is perfectly permissible to not defend a trademark. A lawyer is not obligated, and cannot, make a trademark owner defend it. When I said “defend as require
by arkades 9y ago
> t is perfectly permissible to not defend a trademark. A lawyer is not obligated, and cannot, make a trademark owner defend it.
When I said “defend as required by law,” I meant “defend the IP in the specific manner dictated by our laws,” not that one is obligated to defend it at all. Eg, suing people to prevent IP from becoming generic is the defense that is recognized in our legal tradition - thus, if they are to defend it, the conservative must follow this route.
- cryptonector 9y agoIndeed, but it should still be a business decision. It's absolutely clear that suing, say, Google, over JavaScript mark misuse would be a big deal business decision at Oracle, while sending a cease&desist letter over some piddly app in the iOS store is almost certainly not. But there is a cost to the latter, in that it destroys goodwill to be overly and unnecessarily aggressive in enforcement of a mark that arguably is now generic. This should be a business decision, not a legal one.
- arkades 9y agoIt is a business decision. The idea that lawyers exist in their own bubble somewhere and just launch legal missiles when they want to is false. Part of business is “protect our ownership rights,” and you’d better believe execs push the button on that aggressively.