4 ms·

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

by 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

by 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