3 ms·
There's precedents everywhere for this, as long as the wording meets the actual requirements listed in trademark law. In the past, unscrupulous people would pr
by Hydraulix989 6y ago
There's precedents everywhere for this, as long as the wording meets the actual requirements listed in trademark law.
In the past, unscrupulous people would prey on unintentional confusion by naming their upstart businesses similar to established competitors, for example. There was also rampant counterfeiting. You can still see this today in jurisdictions without strong trademark laws.
This is what trademark law originally aimed to protect us consumers from. Personally, I am happy with doing my own due diligence (let the buyer beware) rather than enacting regulatory laws subject to abuse by heavy-hitters, like in this example. This, of course, is my own personal opinion.
- LorenPechtel 6y agoI have no problem with trademark law being used against companies trying to pretend to be the big guy. But who would think "UberCheats" is something by "Uber"?? I see no possible confusion and that's the whole point of trademark law.
- Hydraulix989 6y agoYes, but how do you draw the line in a way that prevents one bad actor to claim they are in your latter safe bucket of soft-infringement? Without any stringent way of codifying it, there will only be inconsistent enforcement, and there will be people who manage to slip through the cracks. Uber has an UberEats already, maybe someone could think UberCheats are cheat codes or deals for UberEats? There is definitely room for confusion...
- colejohnson66 6y agoThe problem is that something like “are people confused” isn’t something that can be codified in the law. Try to codify an algorithm and people will game it. As such, the only solution is a judge.