4 ms·

FWIW, no need to be angry with them. The reason everyone with a trademark would react exactly the same way is because they have to, by law. If they don't, the

FWIW, no need to be angry with them. The reason everyone with a trademark would react exactly the same way is because they have to, by law. If they don't, the court will argue that they haven't protected their trademark and they will loose it. Yes, this happens in real life.

matt_kantor 12y ago
> Yes, this happens in real life. Do you have any examples of companies losing their trademark because of things similar to gurvinder's case?
- privong 12y ago
  It is still a registered trademark, but "Kleenex" has been genericized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleenex#Kleenex_Trademark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleenex#Kleenex_Trademark I do not know if that is due to their not defending the trademark or what the precise legal status is, though.
- moioci 12y ago
  The first example that comes to my mind resulted from the Murphy Folding Bed Co. suing the Original Murphy Bed Co. because it wasn't the original. http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-17/news/vw-929_1_murphy-bed http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-17/news/vw-929_1_murphy-...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - gonzo 12y ago
    Cisco nearly lost "Chromium" over the same thing. "33. Google abandoned any trademark rights in Chromium software by failing to control the nature and quality of the open source software developed by others but at the same time permitting others to distribute the third party software under the Chromium mark". The case was settled.
pzxc 12y ago
Or, you know, they could say, "Hey that trademark belongs to us, but we like what you're doing, so here's a free license to use it." The requirement to protect your trademark doesn't in any way impede your ability to license it to whomever you wish. (IANAL, TINLA)
- gonzo 12y ago
  Well, you can't practice "naked licensing".
  - pzxc 12y ago
    Thank you very much. Perhaps I was wrong. This requirement seems to present an ongoing responsibility/burden for the trademark holder, so it makes no sense for anyone to do it. http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Naked_license http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Naked_license Does that mean places that explicitly allow "fan fiction" derivative works that use the trademark, are placing themselves at risk of losing ownership of that trademark? If so, that's very disappointing, as it would seem to be suppressing the ability of authors/creators to be generous with their creations.

matt_kantor 12y ago

> Yes, this happens in real life. Do you have any examples of companies losing their trademark because of things similar to gurvinder's case?

privong 12y ago
It is still a registered trademark, but "Kleenex" has been genericized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleenex#Kleenex_Trademark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleenex#Kleenex_Trademark I do not know if that is due to their not defending the trademark or what the precise legal status is, though.
moioci 12y ago
The first example that comes to my mind resulted from the Murphy Folding Bed Co. suing the Original Murphy Bed Co. because it wasn't the original. http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-17/news/vw-929_1_murphy-bed http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-17/news/vw-929_1_murphy-...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- gonzo 12y ago
  Cisco nearly lost "Chromium" over the same thing. "33. Google abandoned any trademark rights in Chromium software by failing to control the nature and quality of the open source software developed by others but at the same time permitting others to distribute the third party software under the Chromium mark". The case was settled.

pzxc 12y ago

Or, you know, they could say, "Hey that trademark belongs to us, but we like what you're doing, so here's a free license to use it." The requirement to protect your trademark doesn't in any way impede your ability to license it to whomever you wish. (IANAL, TINLA)

gonzo 12y ago
Well, you can't practice "naked licensing".
- pzxc 12y ago
  Thank you very much. Perhaps I was wrong. This requirement seems to present an ongoing responsibility/burden for the trademark holder, so it makes no sense for anyone to do it. http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Naked_license http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Naked_license Does that mean places that explicitly allow "fan fiction" derivative works that use the trademark, are placing themselves at risk of losing ownership of that trademark? If so, that's very disappointing, as it would seem to be suppressing the ability of authors/creators to be generous with their creations.