8 ms·

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 lu

by 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.

by joemi 7y ago

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.