3 ms·

In essence companies are forced to be litigious about their trademark. If they don't defend them or become generic the trademark is lost. Even if Oatly believes

In essence companies are forced to be litigious about their trademark. If they don't defend them or become generic the trademark is lost. Even if Oatly believes that there is little to no risk in consumers confusing PureOaty, this might become a liability in future lawsuits

uxcolumbo 5y ago
Thanks for clarifying, but they have no case here - even the judge agrees. Would be interesting to know what they've actually trademarked? That no other brand can use a shade of blue on their packaging when selling oat drinks? I can understand if Glebe Farms called their product Oaty, but they called it PureOaty - doesn't even start with the same letter and their packaging looks different, not as polished as Oatly's packaging. Edit: In the BBC article they claimed the 'y' is the offender. But oaty is an adjective, hence the name PureOaty to create a product name.
- zamalek 5y ago
  > [Article] A spokeswoman for Oatly said the company would not be appealing the decision. Oatly clearly agrees, too. The judge declared their brand/trade dress safe.
pbhjpbhj 5y ago
It's just not true though. In the UK the only reasonable way that it might be conceived that Oatly would lose their many trade marks is acquiescence - they have to give way to a registered trade mark for a period of five years for that to occur. Degeneration (aka genericisation) is laughable far from a possibility in this case. I think https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o32919.pdf https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o32919.p... discusses most of the pertinent precedents. In USA, for example in Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega the trademark holders (AXO) had failed to sue for 50 years, they still came away with a result that Abraham could only use licensed decals on his paddles henceforth. Register, pay your fees, ask people to acknowledge your mark, ... no need to be a sue-happy jerk. Of course nearly all the advice you find is from IP law firms saying you need to sue everyone who even looks at your trade marks sideways. Any caselaw refs that show I'm wrong gratefully received. This represents my personal opinion, unrelated to my employment and is not legal advice.
bananapub 5y ago
that's not the case at all - why do you think it is? did you mix up what country this is in? did you not read the ruling? the amount of extremely lazy and quite incorrect comments on HN has gone way up during the pandemic (or at least become much more noticable).

uxcolumbo 5y ago

Thanks for clarifying, but they have no case here - even the judge agrees. Would be interesting to know what they've actually trademarked? That no other brand can use a shade of blue on their packaging when selling oat drinks? I can understand if Glebe Farms called their product Oaty, but they called it PureOaty - doesn't even start with the same letter and their packaging looks different, not as polished as Oatly's packaging. Edit: In the BBC article they claimed the 'y' is the offender. But oaty is an adjective, hence the name PureOaty to create a product name.

zamalek 5y ago
> [Article] A spokeswoman for Oatly said the company would not be appealing the decision. Oatly clearly agrees, too. The judge declared their brand/trade dress safe.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago

It's just not true though. In the UK the only reasonable way that it might be conceived that Oatly would lose their many trade marks is acquiescence - they have to give way to a registered trade mark for a period of five years for that to occur. Degeneration (aka genericisation) is laughable far from a possibility in this case. I think https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o32919.pdf https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o32919.p... discusses most of the pertinent precedents. In USA, for example in Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega the trademark holders (AXO) had failed to sue for 50 years, they still came away with a result that Abraham could only use licensed decals on his paddles henceforth. Register, pay your fees, ask people to acknowledge your mark, ... no need to be a sue-happy jerk. Of course nearly all the advice you find is from IP law firms saying you need to sue everyone who even looks at your trade marks sideways. Any caselaw refs that show I'm wrong gratefully received. This represents my personal opinion, unrelated to my employment and is not legal advice.

bananapub 5y ago

that's not the case at all - why do you think it is? did you mix up what country this is in? did you not read the ruling? the amount of extremely lazy and quite incorrect comments on HN has gone way up during the pandemic (or at least become much more noticable).