4 ms·

The reminds me of the time a friend of mine told me her polo club was being sued by Ralph Lauren for using the word polo. I wish I was kidding. * I believe the

The reminds me of the time a friend of mine told me her polo club was being sued by Ralph Lauren for using the word polo. I wish I was kidding. * I believe there's something in trademark* law about being required to show some amount of effort defending your trademark. Maybe a lawyer can clarify. Is that getting translated by these corporate lawyers into harassing innocent people?

kube-system 4y ago
There’s nothing in copyright law that pertains to trademark. They’re entirely separate things. But yes, trademarks can be invalidated if you do not defend them. Because the point of a trademark is to be a unique identifier for a particular good or service, to protect consumers against fraud or misrepresentation. If it isn’t a unique identifier because others are using it, then there is not a consumer protection reason to provide this exclusive use anymore. I think people often miss sight that the reason for a trademark isn’t the same as copyright. It’s not a protection of a creative work. It’s a protection of fair commerce.
- usrusr 4y ago
  And yet I've never heard a single word about any trademark issues suffered by the maker of a certain word processor due to insufficient lashing out against everybody who makes unrelated use of the word they happen to use as their product name.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Now you have! https://www.newsweek.com/microsoft-sues-mom-2-over-name-her-business-1737066 https://www.newsweek.com/microsoft-sues-mom-2-over-name-her-...
    - usrusr 4y ago
      Thanks. I keep forgetting that use and use in a product/business name are entirely different things when it comes to this game if calling dibs.
      - usrusr 4y ago
        PS: yet still Wordpress exist and many others. Is it ritualized to the point that they just need one token "defensive takedown" on the books every n years to prove active defense? In that case there might be some money in providing trademark attack as a service, so that trademark owners can go through the formalities of proving worthiness without risking all that negative press that might come with tackling an actual mom&pop, indie game author or similar.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- user3939382 4y ago
  I meant trademark sorry. Personally I’m aware of the difference (having owned both) but it is a common point of confusion.
colonwqbang 4y ago
Trademark erosion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_erosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_er...
- user3939382 4y ago
  That’s it
_fat_santa 4y ago
2030: Splunk Inc and Meta are back in court today. Splunk Inc is being sued by Meta of the term "metadata" in their product which Meta says violates their trademark. 2031: Meta sued a group of Forza Horizon 5 players today, arguing the group infringed on their trademark when they used the term "Meta Build" in a livestream.
- unyttigfjelltol 4y ago
  It's more like Apple suing an orchard for using the same word in their name... which demonstrates the real issue here is that Monster Beverages chose a word that is merely descriptive in an industry adjacent to their own market. Not an expert but maybe they would be better off making the scope of their market clearer rather than tilting at virtual monsters.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Apple did have to get a waiver from Apple Records in England, IiRC, which predated them by almost a decade.
    - kmeisthax 4y ago
      It's important to note that this wasn't a waiver, this was multiple settlement agreements. Apple Corps sued Apple Computer at least four times: - First in 1978, for merely being called Apple. They settled with an agreement to not enter into each other's businesses. - Second, in 1986. Apple Computer put sound chips and MIDI ports into the Apple IIGS. Apple Corps sues claiming violation of the settlement agreement, because apparently just being able to play music makes it a trademark violation now. - Third, in 1991. Apple Corps buys a new Macintosh and notices one of the system sounds is called Sosumi[0]. So they do. The settlement agreement now basically just prohibits Apple Computer from selling physical music. - Fourth, in 2003. Apple Computer opens a digital music store. Apple Corps sues despite the settlement agreement clearly stating they only have rights to sell physical music with the Apple branding. They lose. [0] Pronounced "So Sue Me"
Moissanite 4y ago
To counteract this, we need some form of vexatious litigation charge for copyright and trademarks - if you try to assert ownership over something you obviously don't own (as decided by a jury), you lose the original trademark you were trying to protect into the public domain.
- kube-system 4y ago
  The idea of punishing a mark holder by invalidating their mark presumes that trademarks exist as a benefit to the mark holder. But they don’t. They exist as a benefit to consumers. This would be a misplaced punishment.
  - Moissanite 4y ago
    I presume your point here is that a trademark represents "authenticity", which is valuable to consumers. That's a fair concern, but clearly a large part of the benefit does in fact accrue to the holder - otherwise they wouldn't spend a cent protecting it.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Yes, but the legal construct of trademark does not exist for that reason. They exist only to facilitate fair commerce.
  - smolder 4y ago
    Trademarks benefit both consumers and mark holders. We don't want consumers to be tricked into buying subpar counterfeits, nor do we want infringers to exploit consumer trust in the trademark to steal business from the mark holder or to undermine that trust.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      A trademark could benefit the company, but that’s a secondary downstream effect, not a requirement for a valid mark. Trademarks for horrible and awful products with terrible reputations are still entirely valid despite not being a benefit to the mark holder. On the other hand, trademarks must provide identifying benefit to consumers, in order to be valid. Because this is the primary legal purpose and justification.
blangk 4y ago
Didn't the brand line Polo takes its inspiration from the sport though, given the logo?
- user3939382 4y ago
  Yes exactly, that's what makes it especially ridiculous. Not to mention that trademarks are granted by classes anyway, and the sport and fashion products have nothing to do with each other.

kube-system 4y ago

There’s nothing in copyright law that pertains to trademark. They’re entirely separate things. But yes, trademarks can be invalidated if you do not defend them. Because the point of a trademark is to be a unique identifier for a particular good or service, to protect consumers against fraud or misrepresentation. If it isn’t a unique identifier because others are using it, then there is not a consumer protection reason to provide this exclusive use anymore. I think people often miss sight that the reason for a trademark isn’t the same as copyright. It’s not a protection of a creative work. It’s a protection of fair commerce.

usrusr 4y ago
And yet I've never heard a single word about any trademark issues suffered by the maker of a certain word processor due to insufficient lashing out against everybody who makes unrelated use of the word they happen to use as their product name.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Now you have! https://www.newsweek.com/microsoft-sues-mom-2-over-name-her-business-1737066 https://www.newsweek.com/microsoft-sues-mom-2-over-name-her-...
  - usrusr 4y ago
    Thanks. I keep forgetting that use and use in a product/business name are entirely different things when it comes to this game if calling dibs.
    - usrusr 4y ago
      PS: yet still Wordpress exist and many others. Is it ritualized to the point that they just need one token "defensive takedown" on the books every n years to prove active defense? In that case there might be some money in providing trademark attack as a service, so that trademark owners can go through the formalities of proving worthiness without risking all that negative press that might come with tackling an actual mom&pop, indie game author or similar.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
user3939382 4y ago
I meant trademark sorry. Personally I’m aware of the difference (having owned both) but it is a common point of confusion.

colonwqbang 4y ago

Trademark erosion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_erosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_er...

user3939382 4y ago
That’s it

_fat_santa 4y ago

2030: Splunk Inc and Meta are back in court today. Splunk Inc is being sued by Meta of the term "metadata" in their product which Meta says violates their trademark. 2031: Meta sued a group of Forza Horizon 5 players today, arguing the group infringed on their trademark when they used the term "Meta Build" in a livestream.

unyttigfjelltol 4y ago
It's more like Apple suing an orchard for using the same word in their name... which demonstrates the real issue here is that Monster Beverages chose a word that is merely descriptive in an industry adjacent to their own market. Not an expert but maybe they would be better off making the scope of their market clearer rather than tilting at virtual monsters.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Apple did have to get a waiver from Apple Records in England, IiRC, which predated them by almost a decade.
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    It's important to note that this wasn't a waiver, this was multiple settlement agreements. Apple Corps sued Apple Computer at least four times: - First in 1978, for merely being called Apple. They settled with an agreement to not enter into each other's businesses. - Second, in 1986. Apple Computer put sound chips and MIDI ports into the Apple IIGS. Apple Corps sues claiming violation of the settlement agreement, because apparently just being able to play music makes it a trademark violation now. - Third, in 1991. Apple Corps buys a new Macintosh and notices one of the system sounds is called Sosumi[0]. So they do. The settlement agreement now basically just prohibits Apple Computer from selling physical music. - Fourth, in 2003. Apple Computer opens a digital music store. Apple Corps sues despite the settlement agreement clearly stating they only have rights to sell physical music with the Apple branding. They lose. [0] Pronounced "So Sue Me"

Moissanite 4y ago

To counteract this, we need some form of vexatious litigation charge for copyright and trademarks - if you try to assert ownership over something you obviously don't own (as decided by a jury), you lose the original trademark you were trying to protect into the public domain.

kube-system 4y ago
The idea of punishing a mark holder by invalidating their mark presumes that trademarks exist as a benefit to the mark holder. But they don’t. They exist as a benefit to consumers. This would be a misplaced punishment.
- Moissanite 4y ago
  I presume your point here is that a trademark represents "authenticity", which is valuable to consumers. That's a fair concern, but clearly a large part of the benefit does in fact accrue to the holder - otherwise they wouldn't spend a cent protecting it.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Yes, but the legal construct of trademark does not exist for that reason. They exist only to facilitate fair commerce.
- smolder 4y ago
  Trademarks benefit both consumers and mark holders. We don't want consumers to be tricked into buying subpar counterfeits, nor do we want infringers to exploit consumer trust in the trademark to steal business from the mark holder or to undermine that trust.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    A trademark could benefit the company, but that’s a secondary downstream effect, not a requirement for a valid mark. Trademarks for horrible and awful products with terrible reputations are still entirely valid despite not being a benefit to the mark holder. On the other hand, trademarks must provide identifying benefit to consumers, in order to be valid. Because this is the primary legal purpose and justification.

blangk 4y ago

Didn't the brand line Polo takes its inspiration from the sport though, given the logo?

user3939382 4y ago
Yes exactly, that's what makes it especially ridiculous. Not to mention that trademarks are granted by classes anyway, and the sport and fashion products have nothing to do with each other.