3 ms·

What part of "likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services" isn't clear to you? McDonalds and Starbucks both p

What part of "likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services" isn't clear to you? McDonalds and Starbucks both provide wi-fi as an enticement for their customers not as a public service. Confusing people as to the origin of the "McDonalds WiFi" SSID pretty clearly fits within that definition. Then there's the "tortious interference" angle, and the fact that they don't have to win any kind of suit to make your life miserable. If you sell a product that uses their trademark to degrade the value of a service they provide, that's more than enough for them to get you into court. Do you like making lawyers (on both sides) rich? Or tying up courts so they can't hear cases with more merit? Because even if you win, those are the outcomes. Vexatious litigation is a real thing, and practically impossible to prosecute. It can happen to you. The real world doesn't care about your notions of abstract justice, and it's not dystopian to recognize that. If anything, it's your utopian view that's "wonderful" (i.e. appealing but unrealistic) here.

nobody9999 5y ago
>What part of "likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services" isn't clear to you? McDonalds and Starbucks both provide wi-fi as an enticement for their customers not as a public service. That's a ridiculous statement on its face. I didn't realize that I could receive my hamburger or cup of coffee via WiFi. Certainly, if I surreptitiously set up a WiFi network next to an establishment providing WiFi with an SSID that purports to be from that establishment, there's definitely a problem. But trademark infringement probably isn't even in the top five in the list of problematic issues. But GP wasn't even suggesting something like that. Rather, he was suggesting using such SSIDs in unlikely places, in a likely futile gesture, to confound Google's douchebaggery. As such, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Not about frivolous lawsuits, they are a pox on society. Rather, I disagree that a poor choice of WiFi SSIDs in the context of GPs example (creating such SSIDs in one's moving car to confound Google) could result in a lawsuit from the likes of Starbuck's or McDonald's. I'd go even further and say that doing so from a stationary site (e.g., one's home), even if that site is in relatively close proximity to such a retail establishment, isn't very likely either. In fact, a cursory search[0] doesn't show any trademark litigation associated with using SSIDs. The first result is, in fact, your post, with no other relevant results. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=SSID+trademark+infringement https://www.google.com/search?q=SSID+trademark+infringement Edit: Fixed typo.

nobody9999 5y ago

>What part of "likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services" isn't clear to you? McDonalds and Starbucks both provide wi-fi as an enticement for their customers not as a public service. That's a ridiculous statement on its face. I didn't realize that I could receive my hamburger or cup of coffee via WiFi. Certainly, if I surreptitiously set up a WiFi network next to an establishment providing WiFi with an SSID that purports to be from that establishment, there's definitely a problem. But trademark infringement probably isn't even in the top five in the list of problematic issues. But GP wasn't even suggesting something like that. Rather, he was suggesting using such SSIDs in unlikely places, in a likely futile gesture, to confound Google's douchebaggery. As such, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Not about frivolous lawsuits, they are a pox on society. Rather, I disagree that a poor choice of WiFi SSIDs in the context of GPs example (creating such SSIDs in one's moving car to confound Google) could result in a lawsuit from the likes of Starbuck's or McDonald's. I'd go even further and say that doing so from a stationary site (e.g., one's home), even if that site is in relatively close proximity to such a retail establishment, isn't very likely either. In fact, a cursory search[0] doesn't show any trademark litigation associated with using SSIDs. The first result is, in fact, your post, with no other relevant results. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=SSID+trademark+infringement https://www.google.com/search?q=SSID+trademark+infringement Edit: Fixed typo.