3 ms·

>Any one can attempt to enforce anything against anyone, so I'm not quite sure what you mean. I mean that prior to the granting of this trademark, OSU could no

>Any one can attempt to enforce anything against anyone, so I'm not quite sure what you mean. I mean that prior to the granting of this trademark, OSU could not send lawyers my way if I put "THE" on a hat. Now they can. >Of course frivolous lawsuits and asymmetrical legal costs is a general problem of many modern legal systems, and I'm fine with general arguments about this problem. General arguments are usually bolstered by specific examples. >But this is clearly being presented as some extreme ridiculous example of a bad trademark, when it's very much not. I find it worrisome that so many people think trademarking the word "THE" is somehow not a bad trademark. What the hell do you consider a bad trademark, if not just the word "the"?

tshaddox 4y ago
> I mean that prior to the granting of this trademark, OSU could not send lawyers my way if I put "THE" on a hat. Now they can. No, prior to the granting of this trademark it was still physically possible for their lawyers to threaten you. They wouldn't have had any legal standing, of course, but they still won't have any legal standing unless your products are likely to confuse consumers. > General arguments are usually bolstered by specific examples. Yes, but this is not a specific example of the general argument. > I find it worrisome that so many people think trademarking the word "THE" is somehow not a bad trademark. It is not a bad trademark. It is a mark that in some specific circumstances (specified in the trademark) is likely to lead consumers to believe a product's origin is Ohio State University. In those circumstances, it's absolutely reasonable to enforce the trademark. In any other circumstances where consumers are not likely to be confused about the product's origin, no trademark violation has occurred. Again, this is how all trademarks work. > What the hell do you consider a bad trademark, if not just the word "the"? One example of a bad trademark would be a mark that does not indicate to consumers anything about a product's origin.
Spivak 4y ago
> What the hell do you consider a bad trademark, if not just the word "the"? Someone successfully trademarking an already established generic term. Someone trademarking a web framework called REST for example.

tshaddox 4y ago

> I mean that prior to the granting of this trademark, OSU could not send lawyers my way if I put "THE" on a hat. Now they can. No, prior to the granting of this trademark it was still physically possible for their lawyers to threaten you. They wouldn't have had any legal standing, of course, but they still won't have any legal standing unless your products are likely to confuse consumers. > General arguments are usually bolstered by specific examples. Yes, but this is not a specific example of the general argument. > I find it worrisome that so many people think trademarking the word "THE" is somehow not a bad trademark. It is not a bad trademark. It is a mark that in some specific circumstances (specified in the trademark) is likely to lead consumers to believe a product's origin is Ohio State University. In those circumstances, it's absolutely reasonable to enforce the trademark. In any other circumstances where consumers are not likely to be confused about the product's origin, no trademark violation has occurred. Again, this is how all trademarks work. > What the hell do you consider a bad trademark, if not just the word "the"? One example of a bad trademark would be a mark that does not indicate to consumers anything about a product's origin.

Spivak 4y ago

> What the hell do you consider a bad trademark, if not just the word "the"? Someone successfully trademarking an already established generic term. Someone trademarking a web framework called REST for example.