5 ms·

Sadly that's indeed how trademark law works - if you don't make even a token effort at enforcing your rights, they can become common names and effectively be lo

by toyg 3y ago

Sadly that's indeed how trademark law works - if you don't make even a token effort at enforcing your rights, they can become common names and effectively be lost. That doesn't mean one should rabidly go after every single possible infringing use, obviously, which is what the infamous drafted Rust policy kinda did. It's one of those things that are just not black and white, because laws say one thing ("be harsh all of the time") and actual mores around enforcement say another ("leave people alone when they're clearly in good faith").

jntvjnvutnuvt 3y ago
Name one open source programming language that has its trademark policies like Rust.
- toyg 3y ago
  I don't know why people read my post as a defense of Rust policies - I just said they are at the extreme end of the spectrum, that's not an endorsement.
tialaramex 3y ago
> Sadly that's indeed how trademark law works - if you don't make even a token effort at enforcing your rights, they can become common names and effectively be lost. Can they? Give me examples of such trademarks being lost. Do make sure to check your examples. Maybe you heard say that Xerox lost their trademark. Nope, Xerox® is still a registered trademark of Xerox. > That doesn't mean one should rabidly go after every single possible infringing use If this protection is somehow mandatory, why not? How do I check whether I'm "protecting" a trademark enough? Maybe there's a meter somewhere? Is there a scale? What are the units of trademark protection? If there was such a rule, we'd have answers to these questions. There is no such rule.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  "Lost" meaning that one loses the right to stop others from using the genericized brand, not meaning that the trademark ceases to exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    The best case for the genericization argument in that list might be Lineoleum, but Lineoleum wasn't even a registered trademark. So that's literally the story: Guy invents Lineoleun. Product is popular, other people make the same product under the same name, he's not very happy about that so he goes to court and says hey, that's my trademark. No it isn't, you don't have a trademark.
  - garbagecoder 3y ago
    If it becomes generic it might as well be, but that's not the issue here. Anyway, the parent post has a google jd in trademark law and doesn't know what he's talking about, but you can't enforce your TM the same way, or if at all, if has become generic. The main way you lose tm rights is by not using the mark.
- toyg 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark You might want to check your blood pressure.
lathiat 3y ago
EFF has some good writing on the subject: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
garbagecoder 3y ago
Well, that's not exactly how it works. You don't even need to register a trademark to have common law rights to avoid source confusion. You have to use the mark though or you lose the rights, that much is true. But the only way you lose the right to enforce altogether is if you have some kind of unregistered mark and let it expire. And even if everything you said was exactly right, they still don't have to enforce the trademark in every case to protect their rights. As long as they keep making Rust, they own the rights to call a programming language Rust and they have the right to be identified as the official source and as long as they perfect their rights, they can use it to stop others from using it in certain cases, if they want. There's not really a "waiver" issue except in edge cases. Things only become "common names" in the case (or at least it used to be) that they become generic terms in the language, like "Hey, go xerox this, get me a kleenex, and then google something." Rust will never be able to expand its mark quite like that because it is a generic term in other uses, such as iron oxide. They will not be able to control the production of iron oxide or who calls it rust. So the whole "that's just how this works" defense is either one given by an apologist or someone who is just wrong.

by toyg 3y ago

jntvjnvutnuvt 3y ago

Name one open source programming language that has its trademark policies like Rust.

toyg 3y ago
I don't know why people read my post as a defense of Rust policies - I just said they are at the extreme end of the spectrum, that's not an endorsement.

tialaramex 3y ago

> Sadly that's indeed how trademark law works - if you don't make even a token effort at enforcing your rights, they can become common names and effectively be lost. Can they? Give me examples of such trademarks being lost. Do make sure to check your examples. Maybe you heard say that Xerox lost their trademark. Nope, Xerox® is still a registered trademark of Xerox. > That doesn't mean one should rabidly go after every single possible infringing use If this protection is somehow mandatory, why not? How do I check whether I'm "protecting" a trademark enough? Maybe there's a meter somewhere? Is there a scale? What are the units of trademark protection? If there was such a rule, we'd have answers to these questions. There is no such rule.

fluoridation 3y ago
"Lost" meaning that one loses the right to stop others from using the genericized brand, not meaning that the trademark ceases to exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...
- tialaramex 3y ago
  The best case for the genericization argument in that list might be Lineoleum, but Lineoleum wasn't even a registered trademark. So that's literally the story: Guy invents Lineoleun. Product is popular, other people make the same product under the same name, he's not very happy about that so he goes to court and says hey, that's my trademark. No it isn't, you don't have a trademark.
- garbagecoder 3y ago
  If it becomes generic it might as well be, but that's not the issue here. Anyway, the parent post has a google jd in trademark law and doesn't know what he's talking about, but you can't enforce your TM the same way, or if at all, if has become generic. The main way you lose tm rights is by not using the mark.
toyg 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark You might want to check your blood pressure.

lathiat 3y ago

EFF has some good writing on the subject: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...

garbagecoder 3y ago

Well, that's not exactly how it works. You don't even need to register a trademark to have common law rights to avoid source confusion. You have to use the mark though or you lose the rights, that much is true. But the only way you lose the right to enforce altogether is if you have some kind of unregistered mark and let it expire. And even if everything you said was exactly right, they still don't have to enforce the trademark in every case to protect their rights. As long as they keep making Rust, they own the rights to call a programming language Rust and they have the right to be identified as the official source and as long as they perfect their rights, they can use it to stop others from using it in certain cases, if they want. There's not really a "waiver" issue except in edge cases. Things only become "common names" in the case (or at least it used to be) that they become generic terms in the language, like "Hey, go xerox this, get me a kleenex, and then google something." Rust will never be able to expand its mark quite like that because it is a generic term in other uses, such as iron oxide. They will not be able to control the production of iron oxide or who calls it rust. So the whole "that's just how this works" defense is either one given by an apologist or someone who is just wrong.