4 ms·

It's like one of those marketing things - at some point or another Postman will need to decide what to do here. If they go after them, postwoman will get tons o

It's like one of those marketing things - at some point or another Postman will need to decide what to do here. If they go after them, postwoman will get tons of "free" publicity and probably get the PR win, even if it means renaming to "Post Woman" (with a space) or declaring they will fight it in court. If Postman decides NOT to pursue it, some users may simply be turned off to the fact that they decided to invade the space of Postman with a similar name. I and probably others would probably have respected a different name altogether. If Uber got a competitor called Ubor people would probably also be annoyed.

jawns 7y ago
> If Postman decides NOT to pursue it Choosing not to pursue it can put the trademark at risk. So even if Postman would otherwise shrug, it may need to pursue it to protect its right to the mark.
- jMyles 7y ago
  Are you serious? Or are you satirizing the "need to defend IP or lose it" meme? I seriously cannot imagine the word "postman" falling into genericide on this basis.
  - joemi 7y ago
    Trademarks have to be defended or else you can indeed lose it. That's a fact. Copyrights on the other hand are not the same. You may be confusing the two and lumping them all together under "IP" but there are many legal differences between different types of IP.
    - jMyles 7y ago
      I am very familiar, and have formally studied, trademark genericization. Your patronizing comment is not helpful. Can you point to a mark that you think was genercized in a similar fashion to what you project happening if Postman does not pursue legal action against Postwoman?
      - woofcat 7y ago
        http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-10525-CV0.wpd.pdf http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-10525-CV0.wpd...
        jsgo 7y ago
        Not a lawyer, but in this particular case it appears they reaffirmed the lower court stating the vendor couldn't sell products with trademarked Greek organization lettering (though he could make up ones using the Greek alphabet as demonstrations) and that they could continue to sell their "double raised crest backing" paddle which the group was requesting they be banned from doing. So the trademark was protected it would appear. Even though the infringing company makes a good case (laches) for selling said products without regard from the fraternities/sororities for decades (in fact, they were selling to these organizations, so they were generally aware of the company's existence and practices).
        jMyles 7y ago
        ...that case supports my argument, not yours. Not sure why you are linking it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - syshum 7y ago
      Sorry but I trust the EFF more than I trust you https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not... >>>Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression.
  - gatherhunterer 7y ago
    Refusing or failing to pursue action against a violation of a trademark can cause a trademark to be considered abandoned and therefore invalid. It is a genuine legal concern. This is supposed to prevent individuals and companies from “sitting” on a trademark without the intention of using it.
    - jMyles 7y ago
      So you are saying that you think that "Postman" declining to pursue legal action against "Postwoman" might lead to a court deciding that "Postman" is a generic mark - do I have that correct? Can you point to a case even vaguely close to this fact pattern?
      - legitster 7y ago
        There are tons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize... You don't necessarily need to sue competitors for being misleading, but you do generally have to show you are trying to defend your trademarks and a lawsuit is a nice expensive papertrail.
        jMyles 7y ago
        I assert that literally zero of these cases are even close to this one in terms of the degree of abandonment represented by failure to take action against Postwoman. Can you specify a single one that you think is similar?
      - gatherhunterer 7y ago
        You could have made a simple search and found more confirmation than I could possibly provide. Even the USPTO has top-level search results to that effect. https://www.google.com/search?q=failure%20to%20protect%20trademark&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m https://www.google.com/search?q=failure%20to%20protect%20tra...
        7y ago
- syshum 7y ago
  No, They really do not EFF is debunked this myth many many many times I wish people would stop spreading it, as it just an excuse for Over Aggressive enforcement that companies that DESIRE to do it use to divert the bad PR, "We had no choice" sounds alot better than "We want to crush any competition"
  - OrderlyTiamat 7y ago
    Do you have a link to one of those debunkings? I'd like to read it, thanks in advance.
    - roryokane 7y ago
      Searching the EFF site found me “Trademark Law Does Not Require Companies To Tirelessly Censor the Internet”: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not... > Second, Canonical is not “required” to enforce its mark in every instance or risk losing it. The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark—such as abandonment and genericide—are quite limited. […] Courts also set a very high bar to show abandonment (usually years of total non-use). Importantly, failure to enforce a mark against every potential infringer does not show abandonment. That paragraph cites the court decision https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9507780762101380994 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=950778076210138...: > The evidence in this case shows that Metalock Corp. has and is continuing to take reasonable steps to maintain its rights in the mark, to use that mark, to license its use, to advertise it and to prosecute infringers. The owner of a mark is not required to constantly monitor every nook and cranny of the entire nation and to fire both barrels of his shotgun instantly upon spotting a possible infringer. Lawyers and lawsuits come high and a financial decision must be made in every case as to whether the gain of prosecution is worth the candle. These defendants have not proved that because of the lack of efforts by plaintiffs in "policing" use of the mark, that METALOCK has become so diluted by widespread use by others that it has lost its distinctiveness. My interpretation is that companies do indeed have to prosecute a high enough fraction of infringements to protect their trademark, but they don’t necessarily have to prosecute a given infringement. So, for example, Postman could keep their trademark if they left “Postwoman” alone, as long as they later sued “Post Man” for infringement.

jawns 7y ago

> If Postman decides NOT to pursue it Choosing not to pursue it can put the trademark at risk. So even if Postman would otherwise shrug, it may need to pursue it to protect its right to the mark.

jMyles 7y ago
Are you serious? Or are you satirizing the "need to defend IP or lose it" meme? I seriously cannot imagine the word "postman" falling into genericide on this basis.
- joemi 7y ago
  Trademarks have to be defended or else you can indeed lose it. That's a fact. Copyrights on the other hand are not the same. You may be confusing the two and lumping them all together under "IP" but there are many legal differences between different types of IP.
  - jMyles 7y ago
    I am very familiar, and have formally studied, trademark genericization. Your patronizing comment is not helpful. Can you point to a mark that you think was genercized in a similar fashion to what you project happening if Postman does not pursue legal action against Postwoman?
    - woofcat 7y ago
      http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-10525-CV0.wpd.pdf http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-10525-CV0.wpd...
      - jsgo 7y ago
        Not a lawyer, but in this particular case it appears they reaffirmed the lower court stating the vendor couldn't sell products with trademarked Greek organization lettering (though he could make up ones using the Greek alphabet as demonstrations) and that they could continue to sell their "double raised crest backing" paddle which the group was requesting they be banned from doing. So the trademark was protected it would appear. Even though the infringing company makes a good case (laches) for selling said products without regard from the fraternities/sororities for decades (in fact, they were selling to these organizations, so they were generally aware of the company's existence and practices).
      - jMyles 7y ago
        ...that case supports my argument, not yours. Not sure why you are linking it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - syshum 7y ago
    Sorry but I trust the EFF more than I trust you https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not... >>>Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression.
- gatherhunterer 7y ago
  Refusing or failing to pursue action against a violation of a trademark can cause a trademark to be considered abandoned and therefore invalid. It is a genuine legal concern. This is supposed to prevent individuals and companies from “sitting” on a trademark without the intention of using it.
  - jMyles 7y ago
    So you are saying that you think that "Postman" declining to pursue legal action against "Postwoman" might lead to a court deciding that "Postman" is a generic mark - do I have that correct? Can you point to a case even vaguely close to this fact pattern?
    - legitster 7y ago
      There are tons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize... You don't necessarily need to sue competitors for being misleading, but you do generally have to show you are trying to defend your trademarks and a lawsuit is a nice expensive papertrail.
      - jMyles 7y ago
        I assert that literally zero of these cases are even close to this one in terms of the degree of abandonment represented by failure to take action against Postwoman. Can you specify a single one that you think is similar?
    - gatherhunterer 7y ago
      You could have made a simple search and found more confirmation than I could possibly provide. Even the USPTO has top-level search results to that effect. https://www.google.com/search?q=failure%20to%20protect%20trademark&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m https://www.google.com/search?q=failure%20to%20protect%20tra...
      - 7y ago
syshum 7y ago
No, They really do not EFF is debunked this myth many many many times I wish people would stop spreading it, as it just an excuse for Over Aggressive enforcement that companies that DESIRE to do it use to divert the bad PR, "We had no choice" sounds alot better than "We want to crush any competition"
- OrderlyTiamat 7y ago
  Do you have a link to one of those debunkings? I'd like to read it, thanks in advance.
  - roryokane 7y ago
    Searching the EFF site found me “Trademark Law Does Not Require Companies To Tirelessly Censor the Internet”: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not... > Second, Canonical is not “required” to enforce its mark in every instance or risk losing it. The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark—such as abandonment and genericide—are quite limited. […] Courts also set a very high bar to show abandonment (usually years of total non-use). Importantly, failure to enforce a mark against every potential infringer does not show abandonment. That paragraph cites the court decision https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9507780762101380994 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=950778076210138...: > The evidence in this case shows that Metalock Corp. has and is continuing to take reasonable steps to maintain its rights in the mark, to use that mark, to license its use, to advertise it and to prosecute infringers. The owner of a mark is not required to constantly monitor every nook and cranny of the entire nation and to fire both barrels of his shotgun instantly upon spotting a possible infringer. Lawyers and lawsuits come high and a financial decision must be made in every case as to whether the gain of prosecution is worth the candle. These defendants have not proved that because of the lack of efforts by plaintiffs in "policing" use of the mark, that METALOCK has become so diluted by widespread use by others that it has lost its distinctiveness. My interpretation is that companies do indeed have to prosecute a high enough fraction of infringements to protect their trademark, but they don’t necessarily have to prosecute a given infringement. So, for example, Postman could keep their trademark if they left “Postwoman” alone, as long as they later sued “Post Man” for infringement.