For the trademark infringement (UberEats vs UberCheats etc), if they don't think google or the person complaining (Uber) has it right, they can still absolutely

For the trademark infringement (UberEats vs UberCheats etc), if they don't think google or the person complaining (Uber) has it right, they can still absolutely go to court, and get a declaratory judgement. That's what they should do - they make lots of (what look like total BS) claims that they don't infringe, go to court and you will get an order that UberCheats does not sound similar, look similar or involve same product area (on demand delivery / transport) as UberEats etc and that they have the right to use the name and are not trading on the UberEats and other Uber product brand recognition. Good luck with that case by the way. The platforms don't have a lot of confidence in the timeliness of claim resolution through the court process, they have 10's to 100's of thousands of issues to address weekly. Trademark ripoff apps, apps ripping off copyright, content issues (child abuse / apps that promote violence). Waiting for legal orders on any of this would be time consuming and costly. So we are clear, courts take YEARS to resolve these things. They also operate globally. Developers in Israel and Egypt and the EU and the US. Cross border legal enforcement through the courts is very hard at scale currently and there are political differences as well. My own sense, if govt provided more timely, effective and accurate relief and determinations, folks would be more comfortable with court involvement. But at least on commercial side, given both the politization of courts (which makes rulings both unpredictable and highly variable based on judges involved) and the delays in the process there is just an understanding that to maintain functional ecosystems the platform owners need to take a more hands on approach. I'm in another field where basically everything has gone to arbitration agreements without exception because the court process is just broken for resolutions on larger scales. Companies are getting very careful on this. "If a subscriber/enrollee doesn't agree to arbitration, will Kaiser Permanente decline enrollment? A: Yes. If a subscriber/enrollee does not agree to arbitration, they (and their dependents) will NOT be able to enroll in a Kaiser Permanente plan." So this is extending to nonprofits as well. What's really interesting is business to business (ie, both parties roughly similar negotiating authority) also going to arbitration. The big issue on the business side though is arbs tend to split awards (it's a safe call) rather than just destroying one person even if the case calls for that, and there is no appeal (which business doesn't like, they want at least one other crack at the apple).