Quote:
Originally Posted by polyhistoric
Trademark lawyer here... treading carefully. The law requires trademark owners to take steps to protect their brand not only from infringement but also from dilution. If you allow multiple third-parties to adopt similar names for similar or related services, after time your own mark becomes worthless. How you define similar/related services is the key question. One thing to note is that the "lawsuits" are not actually Federal Court cases, but administrative matters that relate only to the ability to REGISTER a trademark. One strategy for companies with a commonly used word for a traademark is often that they allow others to use marks, but not register.
I would not boycott a company solely for enforcing trademark rights - there is often a lot more to the story than is being said. This could also be the PE influx actually gives them a legal budget to do something they wanted by had no means to accomplish before. Poor customer service and other reasons are good material for boycott.
|
Agree, seems to much like 'cutting of nose to spite face' stuff..I think some, without all the info, is making something inconvenient for
them, when the seller cares not one bit.
I know a guy who chose to NOT TM his product's name, because of the $...he got a cease and desist letter from some BOZO from Spain...this person had no product, just looking for $, a settlement....he would have saved much $ in the long run if he had just TM his product's name.
I buy ammo from WallMart...I know lots who do the 'I'll show THEM', when WM decided to stop, even tho they still have lots on their shelves...silly, imho, to travel farther and spend more $. I guess if it makes the buyer feel better, but that's what boycotts mostly do anyway...