3 ms·

Then why is it so profitable for mark holders to sue everyone so broadly when there is no benefit to consumers? No one thought Tony the Tiger lived in Exxon ga

• kube-system 4y ago
  Because it is exceedingly rare that a law only does or is claimed to apply to exactly what it intends to do without other consequences. There’s always some lawyer who will claim that a law applies even if it it found that doesn’t. In fact, this is entirely normal. Legal cases have two sides and only one will be found right. The motivations of the lawyers in your examples are entirely different than the motivations of the lawmakers who wrote trademark law, and the judiciary that enforces it. Let’s be clear: nobody created trademark law for the purpose of a cereal company getting rich off suing petroleum companies. In fact, those who established trademark law purposefully limited trademarks to a particular good or service exactly to prevent that.
  • mtrower 4y ago
    So if trademarks aren’t helpful to businesses, not intended to be helpful to businesses, why file for one at all?