3 ms·

It baffles me why more companies can't be like this. Surely some testing could provide data on success ratio of sending "friendly" c&d letters versus the normal

It baffles me why more companies can't be like this. Surely some testing could provide data on success ratio of sending "friendly" c&d letters versus the normal threatening kind. I suspect people are much more likely to play nice in this kind of scenario (especially when the reason for the c&d is not as strong), but why not at least put it to the test?

dorianj 14y ago
And if the infringer doesn't reply to the 'friendly' request, the 'threatening' one can certainly still be sent, with the same effect as if it were sent initially.
olalonde 14y ago
There might be misaligned incentives at play here. I'd bet that in a lot of cases lawyers have a strong inventive to settle those things in court.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  Lawyers almost never want to go to court. They bill you for the hours preparing the case beforehand - but it's in court that they can lose.
excuse-me 14y ago
Because their lawyers aren't this smart. Assuming it ever came to court, it comes down to who the jury likes. Compare this letter being read out as evidence to a standard Disney-style "we will wipe you and your family from the face of the Earth" (for copying a story that we copied from Christian-Anderson) - who are th jury going to feel for?
- citricsquid 14y ago
  I would hope to all that is holy that a jury wouldn't give 2 shits what the letter says. It should be about whether or not the person infringed on a trademark, not who has the nicest smile. It's not about lawyer's being smart, it's about most people being vindictive asshats. If someone is willing to infringe on your trademark it's most likely that they're not willing to roll over and take any polite request to stop. If you send them a letter asking politely for them to stop and they ignore the letter you then have to send another (serious) letter, which is double the lawyer time. Sure, in a few cases like this one in makes sense because it's not a clear case of infringement and it's more likely a misguided person than a vindictive person, but in more obvious cases (like someone selling "Jack Danielson's" with the same presentation style) it makes no sense to be nice.
  - jakejake 14y ago
    You would hope so but, sadly when you do participate in a trial (if you get selected for a jury or are involved in the trial) you'll see that human emotions are a major factor.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    Trademark law is a bit bad in this respect. You have to (or be seen to) defend your brand or lose it So if you don't want to become a fax or xerox or kleenex you have to stamp down on anyone using the name generically. But you also have to protect other aspects of the brand image. If you can't show that you have rigorously policed somebody using the JD bottle image, then when another drinks maker comes along and calls their product "John Smith's whiskey" but puts it in a bottle like this then they can claim that JD obviously didn't attach any importance to the shape/design of the bottle because they hadn't pursued other users
    - autarch 14y ago
      I think you meant trademark law. AFAIK, copyright doesn't require an active defense to preserve your rights.
      - excuse-me 14y ago
        Yes sorry, finger-brain-interface issues !
    - corin_ 14y ago
      First, autarch is correct that you're confusing copyright with trademark. Second, fax was never a trademark (or copyrighted), its origination is from Latin, 'fac simile'. Finally, Xerox and Kleenex (and others like Hoover) didn't become generic because they didn't defend their trademarks, the problem was never that rival brands named their products using these names. If I buy a bottle of Pepsi and call it "a coke" then Coca-Cola can't raise any legal objection against either Pepsi or me, and it is this sort of thing that might (and to an extent, already has) lead to other brands being called "coke".
cwp 14y ago
It probably has to do with the nature of the infringement. I doubt they'd be so friendly with a distiller that was selling "Jack Dawson" whisky with a visually similar label. The book cover isn't harmless, but it's not malicious, either.
- autarch 14y ago
  They might be so friendly in that other case, but they shouldn't be. There's a big difference between the two. In the book case, they have a fan in an entirely different business who infringed. They're sane enough to realize that this is very unlikely to impact their bottom line, and there's no malicious intent. In the "Jack Dawson" case, it's naked profiteering off the original brand's name recognition, and it's clearly malicious. Why be nice?
- mikeash 14y ago
  There are plenty of companies out there that will send a true nastygram for any sort of infringement, no matter how harmless.

dorianj 14y ago

And if the infringer doesn't reply to the 'friendly' request, the 'threatening' one can certainly still be sent, with the same effect as if it were sent initially.

olalonde 14y ago

There might be misaligned incentives at play here. I'd bet that in a lot of cases lawyers have a strong inventive to settle those things in court.

excuse-me 14y ago
Lawyers almost never want to go to court. They bill you for the hours preparing the case beforehand - but it's in court that they can lose.

excuse-me 14y ago

Because their lawyers aren't this smart. Assuming it ever came to court, it comes down to who the jury likes. Compare this letter being read out as evidence to a standard Disney-style "we will wipe you and your family from the face of the Earth" (for copying a story that we copied from Christian-Anderson) - who are th jury going to feel for?

citricsquid 14y ago
I would hope to all that is holy that a jury wouldn't give 2 shits what the letter says. It should be about whether or not the person infringed on a trademark, not who has the nicest smile. It's not about lawyer's being smart, it's about most people being vindictive asshats. If someone is willing to infringe on your trademark it's most likely that they're not willing to roll over and take any polite request to stop. If you send them a letter asking politely for them to stop and they ignore the letter you then have to send another (serious) letter, which is double the lawyer time. Sure, in a few cases like this one in makes sense because it's not a clear case of infringement and it's more likely a misguided person than a vindictive person, but in more obvious cases (like someone selling "Jack Danielson's" with the same presentation style) it makes no sense to be nice.
- jakejake 14y ago
  You would hope so but, sadly when you do participate in a trial (if you get selected for a jury or are involved in the trial) you'll see that human emotions are a major factor.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  Trademark law is a bit bad in this respect. You have to (or be seen to) defend your brand or lose it So if you don't want to become a fax or xerox or kleenex you have to stamp down on anyone using the name generically. But you also have to protect other aspects of the brand image. If you can't show that you have rigorously policed somebody using the JD bottle image, then when another drinks maker comes along and calls their product "John Smith's whiskey" but puts it in a bottle like this then they can claim that JD obviously didn't attach any importance to the shape/design of the bottle because they hadn't pursued other users
  - autarch 14y ago
    I think you meant trademark law. AFAIK, copyright doesn't require an active defense to preserve your rights.
    - excuse-me 14y ago
      Yes sorry, finger-brain-interface issues !
  - corin_ 14y ago
    First, autarch is correct that you're confusing copyright with trademark. Second, fax was never a trademark (or copyrighted), its origination is from Latin, 'fac simile'. Finally, Xerox and Kleenex (and others like Hoover) didn't become generic because they didn't defend their trademarks, the problem was never that rival brands named their products using these names. If I buy a bottle of Pepsi and call it "a coke" then Coca-Cola can't raise any legal objection against either Pepsi or me, and it is this sort of thing that might (and to an extent, already has) lead to other brands being called "coke".

cwp 14y ago

It probably has to do with the nature of the infringement. I doubt they'd be so friendly with a distiller that was selling "Jack Dawson" whisky with a visually similar label. The book cover isn't harmless, but it's not malicious, either.

autarch 14y ago
They might be so friendly in that other case, but they shouldn't be. There's a big difference between the two. In the book case, they have a fan in an entirely different business who infringed. They're sane enough to realize that this is very unlikely to impact their bottom line, and there's no malicious intent. In the "Jack Dawson" case, it's naked profiteering off the original brand's name recognition, and it's clearly malicious. Why be nice?
mikeash 14y ago
There are plenty of companies out there that will send a true nastygram for any sort of infringement, no matter how harmless.