4 ms·

I like that you're making concrete proposals and the append-random-numbers approach is thought-provoking. Removing the numbers for trademark holders is an impe

I like that you're making concrete proposals and the append-random-numbers approach is thought-provoking. Removing the numbers for trademark holders is an imperfect solution though, though, since multiple entities can hold the same mark so long as they are in different markets. A critical test for trademark violation is "does it cause confusion in the marketplace?" and if nobody confuses Oracle Software with HiSpec Oracle trailer tires or Oracle Lighting, they're all allowed to hold a trademark on "Oracle". But if you're talking about a namespace where "there can be only one", which of the entities who holds a registered trademark wins?

terribleperson 3y ago
That's why I followed on with the suggestion of replacing the numbers with the owning entity. "Apple|Apple Inc." would be separate from "Apple|Apple Records." Of course, this is complicated when a trademark is owned by different companies in different countries or when a trademark is licensed to a company including the right to advertise with that trademark. An alternative thought I had was replacing the numbers with the business the trademark is in, but plenty of trademarks apply to more than one business and the 'primary' one can change over time. There are assuredly better solutions, but even an imperfect solution is better than the current state of things. First-come-first-serve with unique per-site screen names just plain sucks.