5 ms·

Then how would you prevent people from tricking customers with confusingly similar names and packaging?

by derleth 13y ago

baddox 13y ago
Contract law.
- stinkytaco 13y ago
  I can't see how contract law protects me from buying a brand other than Coke. If that isn't punchy enough, imagine a company selling a homeopathic medicine and advertising it with similar phrases and names to Asprin. If I'm taking Asprin to prevent heart attacks and I'm confused and pick up the homeopathic stuff, I could be harmed. Contract law is no protection here.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > I can't see how contract law protects me from buying a brand other than Coke. It wouldn't literally prevent all cases. It would allow for damages to be awarded to victims, paid for by the perpetrators, which would deincentivize manufacturers from attempting to deceive customers. Contract law provides precisely the same protection here as trademark law, except it's better, because damages can be awarded to the people who were actually deceived and potentially harmed. Also, the great side effect is you don't have all the ludicrous results of trademark law, like ownership of letters, words, phrases, shapes, and colors.
    - derleth 13y ago
      > Also, the great side effect is you don't have all the ludicrous results of trademark law, like ownership of letters, words, phrases, shapes, and colors. Except if you don't have that, or its equivalent, the system can't work. Whether the mechanism is based on contracts or ownership, the end result is that the only kind of soda which can have that bottle shape and that kind of logo design is the one made by this specific company. Otherwise, it's too confusing, and fraudulent misrepresentation is too easy. Specific colors, words, shapes, and patterns are how human brains distinguish things. They have to be distinct and recognizable for people to differentiate between different kinds of product, especially when they're different varieties of the same basic thing. It seems you're getting hung up on specific terms, such as 'own'. That's not how the law works: Broad concepts are whittled down into specific terms of art in each individual branch of the law, which is what has happened to the concept of 'ownership' when applied to trademarks. It's a very different thing from owning a car, but there are certain vague similarities that justify the re-use of the concept.
    - stinkytaco 13y ago
      So the end result would be the same, no? I buy the wrong brand due to the bottle being the same shape and I get damages. But that's still contingent on Coke "owning" that bottle shape. Whether it happens before the purchase or after it, Coke still owns that shape. I'd frankly like to avoid the headache of pursuing damages and just have that dealt with between the companies who want to go to the trouble of trademarking something so I can just buy what I want.

Then how would you prevent people from tricking customers with confusingly similar names and packaging?

by derleth 13y ago

Then how would you prevent people from tricking customers with confusingly similar names and packaging?

baddox 13y ago

Contract law.

stinkytaco 13y ago
I can't see how contract law protects me from buying a brand other than Coke. If that isn't punchy enough, imagine a company selling a homeopathic medicine and advertising it with similar phrases and names to Asprin. If I'm taking Asprin to prevent heart attacks and I'm confused and pick up the homeopathic stuff, I could be harmed. Contract law is no protection here.
- baddox 13y ago
  > I can't see how contract law protects me from buying a brand other than Coke. It wouldn't literally prevent all cases. It would allow for damages to be awarded to victims, paid for by the perpetrators, which would deincentivize manufacturers from attempting to deceive customers. Contract law provides precisely the same protection here as trademark law, except it's better, because damages can be awarded to the people who were actually deceived and potentially harmed. Also, the great side effect is you don't have all the ludicrous results of trademark law, like ownership of letters, words, phrases, shapes, and colors.
  - derleth 13y ago
    > Also, the great side effect is you don't have all the ludicrous results of trademark law, like ownership of letters, words, phrases, shapes, and colors. Except if you don't have that, or its equivalent, the system can't work. Whether the mechanism is based on contracts or ownership, the end result is that the only kind of soda which can have that bottle shape and that kind of logo design is the one made by this specific company. Otherwise, it's too confusing, and fraudulent misrepresentation is too easy. Specific colors, words, shapes, and patterns are how human brains distinguish things. They have to be distinct and recognizable for people to differentiate between different kinds of product, especially when they're different varieties of the same basic thing. It seems you're getting hung up on specific terms, such as 'own'. That's not how the law works: Broad concepts are whittled down into specific terms of art in each individual branch of the law, which is what has happened to the concept of 'ownership' when applied to trademarks. It's a very different thing from owning a car, but there are certain vague similarities that justify the re-use of the concept.
  - stinkytaco 13y ago
    So the end result would be the same, no? I buy the wrong brand due to the bottle being the same shape and I get damages. But that's still contingent on Coke "owning" that bottle shape. Whether it happens before the purchase or after it, Coke still owns that shape. I'd frankly like to avoid the headache of pursuing damages and just have that dealt with between the companies who want to go to the trouble of trademarking something so I can just buy what I want.