5 ms·

The Unicode Consortium did the same to me for a totally unmonetized hobby project.

by 3131s 6y ago

dspillett 6y ago
"unmonetized" doesn't actually make a difference in trademark law. If they felt they had to defend the mark under the letter of the law in order to keep control of the mark, then they need to defend it where used for non-monetary gain (or no gain at all) as much as where it is used for that purpose. Of course sometimes mark holders will avoid going after the bigger fish where possible, just in case, unless they have a very strong case (obvious deliberate misuse of the mark).
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Are you claiming that trademark law doesn't care if there is trade happening?
  - castis 6y ago
    That is correct, trademark law is only concerned about the mark the traders themselves use. You can trademark a bunch of stuff, do nothing with it, and sue the pants of anyone who comes near it if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_troll
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      You have to use a mark for trade (in UK, EU, at least) to maintain a trademark. So, you can trademark a bunch of stuff but a challenger can point out you didn't use the mark and you can lose it - abandonment. A trademark isn't a trade mark unless you're using it for 'trade'! Not legal advice. Personal opinion, in no way relates to my employment.
  - dspillett 6y ago
    It doesn't care if the trade is specifically monetarily based. If someone is taking something from you, even for free or with payment in "recognition dollars", trade is happening.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Many commenters pointed out that this is not true: 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...
  - dspillett 6y ago
    WRT needing to defend the mark: I was discussing what they seem to think is true, not necessarily that it was actually true, and that they are applying their interpretation fairly. And legally required or not, publicly acting to defend the mark may put off others using something similar which is presumably the desire. A bit of a bully-boy tactic perhaps, but again I'm stating the fact rather than judging it.

The Unicode Consortium did the same to me for a totally unmonetized hobby project.

by 3131s 6y ago

The Unicode Consortium did the same to me for a totally unmonetized hobby project.

"unmonetized" doesn't actually make a difference in trademark law. If they felt they had to defend the mark under the letter of the law in order to keep control of the mark, then they need to defend it where used for non-monetary gain (or no gain at all) as much as where it is used for that purpose. Of course sometimes mark holders will avoid going after the bigger fish where possible, just in case, unless they have a very strong case (obvious deliberate misuse of the mark).

Dylan16807 6y ago
Are you claiming that trademark law doesn't care if there is trade happening?
- castis 6y ago
  That is correct, trademark law is only concerned about the mark the traders themselves use. You can trademark a bunch of stuff, do nothing with it, and sue the pants of anyone who comes near it if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_troll
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    You have to use a mark for trade (in UK, EU, at least) to maintain a trademark. So, you can trademark a bunch of stuff but a challenger can point out you didn't use the mark and you can lose it - abandonment. A trademark isn't a trade mark unless you're using it for 'trade'! Not legal advice. Personal opinion, in no way relates to my employment.
- dspillett 6y ago
  It doesn't care if the trade is specifically monetarily based. If someone is taking something from you, even for free or with payment in "recognition dollars", trade is happening.
imtringued 6y ago
Many commenters pointed out that this is not true: 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...
- dspillett 6y ago
  WRT needing to defend the mark: I was discussing what they seem to think is true, not necessarily that it was actually true, and that they are applying their interpretation fairly. And legally required or not, publicly acting to defend the mark may put off others using something similar which is presumably the desire. A bit of a bully-boy tactic perhaps, but again I'm stating the fact rather than judging it.