7 ms·

The guy made a very valid point: We must pursue our trademarks or risk losing them. We must. So can we make this amicable instead of hostile? The maintainer c

The guy made a very valid point: We must pursue our trademarks or risk losing them. We must. So can we make this amicable instead of hostile? The maintainer could have requested things like "Okay can I make some blog posts and you help me with some SEO to make sure people are aware of the changes to my project name?" etc. Sounds like Kik was willing to be reasonable and help where they could. Clearly they could have gone in with an opening statement saying "this is the lawyer, I am sending trademark takedown notices, fuck you, go to hell" but they clearly did not. This is one person trying to make the best of an awkward situation, and one person just saying "duces".

stefan_ 6y ago
This trademark thing must be the next biggest popular HN misunderstanding after the whole "act in the shareholders interest" debacle.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  Could you explain the trademark misunderstanding in a bit more detail?
  - anchpop 6y ago
    According to GitHub [0]: > Using another's trademark in a way that has nothing to do with the product or service for which the trademark was granted is not a trademark policy violation. Many people think that if you have a trademark, you have to sue everyone who uses your name no matter what capacity they're using it in, which doesn't seem to be the case. If their usage is unrelated to yours, you have no authority to prevent them from using it however they want. There are some exceptions to this, like the American Red Cross's logo of a red cross on a white background (nobody is allowed to use this except the red cross in any context, although it isn't always enforced) [1]. [0]: https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-trademark-policy#what-is-not-a-github-trademark-policy-violation https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-tradema... [1]: https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cross--two-cross--red-cross--blue-cross-when__ https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cr...
    - tialaramex 6y ago
      Also people get carried away with how estoppel works. Estoppel is a basic principle in civil law that says if Alice tells Bob it's fine for him to do X, then even if Bob is infringing on Alice's lawful rights by doing X, she doesn't get to come back later and tell a court "Hey, Bob was infringing my rights by doing X". And that's where it definitely stops, but people get carried away and imagine now if Alice tells Bob, "Enough, I need you to stop doing X by this reasonable time" and Bob says "Fuck you Alice" and keeps doing X the court will rule for Bob. Nope. And they imagine Bob's friend Charlie might show up too, and do X and Alice has to accept that because she told Bob previously it was fine, again Nope. As a result some businesses become convinced that unless they pay lawyers to threaten every hobby project starting with the same first letter as their product the terrible "estoppel" will destroy their business. Also just as a general principle lawyers are for avoiding disputes first, fixing existing disputes as a last resort. If you're actively paying lawyers to start shit you are probably Doing It Wrong™.
stevenjohns 6y ago
“We must” is nonsense on the part of Kik. That’s part of the corporate b/s where people make it seem like things are “out of our hands.” If he was releasing a messenger app called KikAss, then sure, they “must” enforce the Kik trademark. But if I release a brand of shoes called Kik, with an api that allows users to poll how many steps a user has taken that day, that’s not a trademark violation. Trademark violations require intent to mislead, or they could be unintentionally confusing (for example, if Kik has been talking about releasing shoes for a while or if it’s a well known brand of soccer balls). Neither of these things have occurred, so the trademark doesn’t have to go through a (futile) enforcement process.
- gwillz 6y ago
  This is it, really. Not long ago I was involved in a company that defended their trademark. The other group said to us 'f- you' and refused to comply. They then continued to do marketing and interviews with our brand name and an almost identical logo. It's like they were trying to dig a hole. So that behaviour actually just created more evidence of infringement. We contacted their partners and explained the situation and they started pulling their support. They lost half their board members. So eventually their own lawyer said "Hey guys, we really should comply." and that was it. No money exchanged hands and we only dropped 30k into a lawyer. I assume they sunk money into rebranding, lawyers, new partners, and a whole bunch of things because they were being petty.
- guug 6y ago
  > Trademarks require intent to mislead Is this a legal requirement?
  - stevenjohns 6y ago
    I meant trademark violations. My bad. I edited the post and added the missing word.
    - albedoa 6y ago
      As someone else mentioned, your correction is also incorrect. One can violate trademark unintentionally.

stefan_ 6y ago

This trademark thing must be the next biggest popular HN misunderstanding after the whole "act in the shareholders interest" debacle.

Thorrez 6y ago
Could you explain the trademark misunderstanding in a bit more detail?
- anchpop 6y ago
  According to GitHub [0]: > Using another's trademark in a way that has nothing to do with the product or service for which the trademark was granted is not a trademark policy violation. Many people think that if you have a trademark, you have to sue everyone who uses your name no matter what capacity they're using it in, which doesn't seem to be the case. If their usage is unrelated to yours, you have no authority to prevent them from using it however they want. There are some exceptions to this, like the American Red Cross's logo of a red cross on a white background (nobody is allowed to use this except the red cross in any context, although it isn't always enforced) [1]. [0]: https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-trademark-policy#what-is-not-a-github-trademark-policy-violation https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-tradema... [1]: https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cross--two-cross--red-cross--blue-cross-when__ https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cr...
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    Also people get carried away with how estoppel works. Estoppel is a basic principle in civil law that says if Alice tells Bob it's fine for him to do X, then even if Bob is infringing on Alice's lawful rights by doing X, she doesn't get to come back later and tell a court "Hey, Bob was infringing my rights by doing X". And that's where it definitely stops, but people get carried away and imagine now if Alice tells Bob, "Enough, I need you to stop doing X by this reasonable time" and Bob says "Fuck you Alice" and keeps doing X the court will rule for Bob. Nope. And they imagine Bob's friend Charlie might show up too, and do X and Alice has to accept that because she told Bob previously it was fine, again Nope. As a result some businesses become convinced that unless they pay lawyers to threaten every hobby project starting with the same first letter as their product the terrible "estoppel" will destroy their business. Also just as a general principle lawyers are for avoiding disputes first, fixing existing disputes as a last resort. If you're actively paying lawyers to start shit you are probably Doing It Wrong™.

stevenjohns 6y ago

“We must” is nonsense on the part of Kik. That’s part of the corporate b/s where people make it seem like things are “out of our hands.” If he was releasing a messenger app called KikAss, then sure, they “must” enforce the Kik trademark. But if I release a brand of shoes called Kik, with an api that allows users to poll how many steps a user has taken that day, that’s not a trademark violation. Trademark violations require intent to mislead, or they could be unintentionally confusing (for example, if Kik has been talking about releasing shoes for a while or if it’s a well known brand of soccer balls). Neither of these things have occurred, so the trademark doesn’t have to go through a (futile) enforcement process.

gwillz 6y ago
This is it, really. Not long ago I was involved in a company that defended their trademark. The other group said to us 'f- you' and refused to comply. They then continued to do marketing and interviews with our brand name and an almost identical logo. It's like they were trying to dig a hole. So that behaviour actually just created more evidence of infringement. We contacted their partners and explained the situation and they started pulling their support. They lost half their board members. So eventually their own lawyer said "Hey guys, we really should comply." and that was it. No money exchanged hands and we only dropped 30k into a lawyer. I assume they sunk money into rebranding, lawyers, new partners, and a whole bunch of things because they were being petty.
guug 6y ago
> Trademarks require intent to mislead Is this a legal requirement?
- stevenjohns 6y ago
  I meant trademark violations. My bad. I edited the post and added the missing word.
  - albedoa 6y ago
    As someone else mentioned, your correction is also incorrect. One can violate trademark unintentionally.