4 ms·

I don't think Arm's boss is personally offended by any of this but trademark laws require companies to protect their own trademark, otherwise they might simply

I don't think Arm's boss is personally offended by any of this but trademark laws require companies to protect their own trademark, otherwise they might simply lose the rights to own it. It is explained in the article: "At the same time, we have a duty to protect the Arm brand, which has been built over more than 30 years. Like all companies with registered trademarks, Arm is legally obligated to ensure those trademarks are protected and used appropriately. We recognize that this activity is sometimes met with frustration and are actively working to find a solution that works for all parties involved." It's not about 'rules', it is a legal requirement.

spookie 3y ago
Understandable, it's unfortunate
lesserknowndan 3y ago
This is wrong. Companies only need to “protect” trademarks by going after companies that offer similar products using that trademarked name. Unless a company gets a service mark, trademarks also only apply in certain categories. This was massive overreach by ARM. And frankly it was really inappropriate of the hosting provider to interfere with the websites.
- greysun 3y ago
  [dead]
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    Those websites were not selling chips or chip designs. Those websites used the trademark to refer the same product and do not create any potential for confusion. Please show me where there is a "legal duty" to go after fair use and be callous and lazy towards someone who is actively working to make your product better. Edit: Even if ARM had been completely unwilling to allow the fair use here, they could still have reached out directly since there is already a close relationship, rather than to going to the hosting provider and getting everything, even unrelated stuff, yanked down. I sure hope this is the end of the Pro Bono work the author does for them.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - clankyclanker 3y ago
    Nowhere does acknowledging and permitting the use require a C&D. A simple “we see you and this is fine” letter would’ve also met the policing requirement. The C&D is only required when you want to shut folks up and get the lawyers their bonuses.
  - talideon 3y ago
    This isn't one of those cases. This isn't a Xerox, Hoover, or even Google situation. Simple reference of a trademark is allowed. What holders need to guard against is dilution and generification within the applicable domain.
shkkmo 3y ago
That's the assertion ARM made. Yet it seems to me that is is pretty unclear that this is an open and shut case of trademark infringement. This appears to an example of fair-use to me as there is nothing her that would indicate any potential for confusion to the market or harm to the brand. Part of problem here is that the incentives support over enforcement, there is little to no legal consequence when companies go after fair use and a lack on enforcement does carry risks of eventually losing the trademark. However, that doesn't justify ARM's actions here. There are plenty of ways that ARM could have approached this that would have protected their trademark without the loss of goodwill from someone they have a valuable relationship with. Taking this approach is indicative of laziness and indiffence.
toast0 3y ago
For a case like this, it's easy: give this site a license (or sell it one for $1), have them put trademark notices, and call it a day.

spookie 3y ago

Understandable, it's unfortunate

lesserknowndan 3y ago

This is wrong. Companies only need to “protect” trademarks by going after companies that offer similar products using that trademarked name. Unless a company gets a service mark, trademarks also only apply in certain categories. This was massive overreach by ARM. And frankly it was really inappropriate of the hosting provider to interfere with the websites.

greysun 3y ago
[dead]
- shkkmo 3y ago
  Those websites were not selling chips or chip designs. Those websites used the trademark to refer the same product and do not create any potential for confusion. Please show me where there is a "legal duty" to go after fair use and be callous and lazy towards someone who is actively working to make your product better. Edit: Even if ARM had been completely unwilling to allow the fair use here, they could still have reached out directly since there is already a close relationship, rather than to going to the hosting provider and getting everything, even unrelated stuff, yanked down. I sure hope this is the end of the Pro Bono work the author does for them.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- clankyclanker 3y ago
  Nowhere does acknowledging and permitting the use require a C&D. A simple “we see you and this is fine” letter would’ve also met the policing requirement. The C&D is only required when you want to shut folks up and get the lawyers their bonuses.
- talideon 3y ago
  This isn't one of those cases. This isn't a Xerox, Hoover, or even Google situation. Simple reference of a trademark is allowed. What holders need to guard against is dilution and generification within the applicable domain.

shkkmo 3y ago

That's the assertion ARM made. Yet it seems to me that is is pretty unclear that this is an open and shut case of trademark infringement. This appears to an example of fair-use to me as there is nothing her that would indicate any potential for confusion to the market or harm to the brand. Part of problem here is that the incentives support over enforcement, there is little to no legal consequence when companies go after fair use and a lack on enforcement does carry risks of eventually losing the trademark. However, that doesn't justify ARM's actions here. There are plenty of ways that ARM could have approached this that would have protected their trademark without the loss of goodwill from someone they have a valuable relationship with. Taking this approach is indicative of laziness and indiffence.

toast0 3y ago

For a case like this, it's easy: give this site a license (or sell it one for $1), have them put trademark notices, and call it a day.