4 ms·
This makes it seem that Affinity is the prosecuting party, but it's actually just Spring being overly zealous. In fact, Spring are doing more enforcement than t
by rexreed 5y ago
This makes it seem that Affinity is the prosecuting party, but it's actually just Spring being overly zealous. In fact, Spring are doing more enforcement than the supposed trademark-owning entity itself.
I can see protecting a readily-identifiable brand such as "Alpha Epsilon Pi" or "Phi Kappa Beta" in the context of how the apparel is being promoted, but to overly protect partial components in any context is basically lazy, overzealous enforcement.
- dnautics 5y ago> This makes it seem that Affinity is the prosecuting party, It was pretty clear to me that Affinity wasn't. I thought the article was quite notable for NOT painting Affinity as the "bad" party.
- rexreed 5y agoSure, the article does that, but not Spring themselves. Spring responds to the product creator that it's not their fault, it's Affinity's fault for trademark enforcement. But the reality is that it's not Affinity's enforcement that's the issue. So yes, the article does a good job of getting to the heart of it, but for everyone who can get the attention of the press for their cause, how many are stuck with Spring's nonsense answer and attempt to shift blame?
- dnautics 5y agook, sure. the referent for "This" in your parent comment is unclear. Thank you for clarifying, I agree with you!
- jhanschoo 5y agoI wonder if there is a safe harbor provision that could protect companies like Spring if they were to be less zealous.