3 ms·
>I'm well aware that companies need to defend their trademarks legally, or risk losing them // Could you source this. It's a common belief that seems false. Y
by pbhjpbhj 6y ago
>I'm well aware that companies need to defend their trademarks legally, or risk losing them //
Could you source this. It's a common belief that seems false.
You pay your fees to keep a trademark.
Genericisation is also a risk and that needs some defence.
They're not even using the Apple trademark, so the "defence is required" argument (even if true) doesn't appear relevant.
- crazygringo 6y ago"In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use"." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights
- projektfu 6y agoYes but this mark is not Apple’s. Defending a trade mark is preventing people from using it to essentially sell products in your name. Thus, if one of the KIRFs that engadget profiles had an Apple logo, it’s on Apple to sue. But there’s no real requirement to go after things that are remotely similar, it’s just a dick move. What if John Deere sued Merrill Lynch? Both are using ruminants on their logos. Is it a failure to defend for Deere to not sue? Come on.