4 ms·

Trademark law generally requires them to defend their trademark or lose it. This means lots of letters from Apple inc's lawyers to small orchards in the middle

by yuvouv 17y ago

Trademark law generally requires them to defend their trademark or lose it. This means lots of letters from Apple inc's lawyers to small orchards in the middle of nowhere. The general response is either to ignore it or send back a simple letter saying "thank you - we don't believe there is sufficent similarity" If they mean it they will try an take you to court, then you can decide wether to fight or change your name. At the moment they probably don't expect you to do anything - this is just something they have to send out in case anyone ever does a direct copy of their software and calls themselves magnolia. In which case they have to prove they have always protested.

mbrubeck 17y ago
"Trademark law generally requires them to defend their trademark or lose it. This means lots of letters from Apple inc's lawyers to small orchards in the middle of nowhere." No, it doesn't. You don't automatically lose a mark through lack of enforcement. There are specific ways that marks may be weakened (genericization, tarnishment, dilution) depending on the action or inaction of the trademark holder, but someone defending an alleged infringement would still have to argue in court that one of these specific cases applied. And in no case does it mean that Apple Inc. has any reason to contact fruit growers. (This should be obvious from the fact that Apple does not in fact send cease-and-desist letters to fruit growers.)
- yuvouv 17y ago
  You can lose a trademark case if you have been too selective in who you complain about. Especially if you are seen to be ignoring small time infringers but only going after those with big pockets, the case can be thrown out. Lawyers tend to err on the side of sending C+D letters to anyone, such as the case of Sun and the island of Java tourist authority. The apple/orchards bit was irony - it's in the dictionary. The other problem is judges/juries and computers. The trademark has to be in the same field, but the courts aren't always as tech savvy as HN readers and frequently regard all 'computer stuff' as the same field. So while we would see a CRM package and a forum website as completely different as a magnolia plant shop and a magnolia paint company - a judge might not.
  - fatdog789 17y ago
    That's the exact opposite of the way the law works: you CAN ignore small-time infringers, b/c you don't need to actively patrol for abuse -- enforcement actions only need be sought once an infringement is discovered. Courts don't have to be tech savvy for trademark law, which predates computers by some 8 or 9 decades. Most of the finer distinctions of trademark law arise not from the computer arena but from the retail arena. You seriously underestimate the level of specificity required to successfully bring a trademark infringement action.

by yuvouv 17y ago

mbrubeck 17y ago

"Trademark law generally requires them to defend their trademark or lose it. This means lots of letters from Apple inc's lawyers to small orchards in the middle of nowhere." No, it doesn't. You don't automatically lose a mark through lack of enforcement. There are specific ways that marks may be weakened (genericization, tarnishment, dilution) depending on the action or inaction of the trademark holder, but someone defending an alleged infringement would still have to argue in court that one of these specific cases applied. And in no case does it mean that Apple Inc. has any reason to contact fruit growers. (This should be obvious from the fact that Apple does not in fact send cease-and-desist letters to fruit growers.)

yuvouv 17y ago
You can lose a trademark case if you have been too selective in who you complain about. Especially if you are seen to be ignoring small time infringers but only going after those with big pockets, the case can be thrown out. Lawyers tend to err on the side of sending C+D letters to anyone, such as the case of Sun and the island of Java tourist authority. The apple/orchards bit was irony - it's in the dictionary. The other problem is judges/juries and computers. The trademark has to be in the same field, but the courts aren't always as tech savvy as HN readers and frequently regard all 'computer stuff' as the same field. So while we would see a CRM package and a forum website as completely different as a magnolia plant shop and a magnolia paint company - a judge might not.
- fatdog789 17y ago
  That's the exact opposite of the way the law works: you CAN ignore small-time infringers, b/c you don't need to actively patrol for abuse -- enforcement actions only need be sought once an infringement is discovered. Courts don't have to be tech savvy for trademark law, which predates computers by some 8 or 9 decades. Most of the finer distinctions of trademark law arise not from the computer arena but from the retail arena. You seriously underestimate the level of specificity required to successfully bring a trademark infringement action.