2 ms·
This is wrong. Companies only need to “protect” trademarks by going after companies that offer similar products using that trademarked name. Unless a company ge
by 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 agoThose 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 agoNowhere 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 agoThis 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.