Forum Moderators: not2easy
Now, please, note that english is not my native language, but that don't stop me to glimpse a sarcasm in your post.
I'd really appreciate a direct comment, instead. Because sarcasm has never worked well in electronic comunication, in any language, and even less with an international audience.
I didn't think he was being sarcastic.
Man, you don't know BigDave, he eats lawyers for breakfast. :)
Trademark is meant to protect you from dilution of your brand, or use that causes market confusion. Other than that protection, it gives you no rights to keep someone else from using your mark.
It is not copyright or patent.
If someone thinks that it gives them total control over the use of their mark, then someone that mentions "trademark dilution" knows more about trademark than the person that thinks they have complete control of the use of that mark.
If you go to AMD's trademark info page at [amd.com...]
You will see that they use, and credit, other company's trademarks. They even have several from their arch-rival Intel listed.
At least as far as US law is concerned, AMD has ever right to use thoae Intel trademarks as long as long as AMD does nto cause dilution or market confusion.
And this is a direct competitor!
The more likely you are to cause confusion, the more careful you have to be about how you use the trademark.
If you are a direct competitor, then you should always run your references to the product past you lawyer. If you are a totally non-commercial site (unless it is specifically set up to deceive the user), then you don't even have to acknowledge that it is a trademark. I can talk about drinking Coke with my breakfast of SPAM and Pop Tarts all day without once mentioning that any of those words are trademarked.
It is the law, not the trademark owner, that controls what you cannot do with the mark. The trademark owner can grant you more rights, but they cannot add more restrictions without a contract.
As for chewing up lawyers, that is only likely to happen if they are arguing something outside their field.
Those that I generally chew up are non-lawyers that try and make arguments about what they think the law is, or what it should be.
Bitlaw has a fairly clear explanation on trademarks, infringement, and dilution.
[bitlaw.com...]
At the top of the page on infringement for example is a paragraph that contains the following telling bit:
Claims of trademark infringement are increasingly common on the Internet and the World Wide Web. Some of these claims are legitimate complaints, made against web users who do not fully understand this area of the law. Some, however, are inappropriate in that they make charges trademark infringement in circumstances where infringement is unlikely to be found.
In other words, there are a lot of people that have no clue what a trademark gives them.
Trademark holders are *required* by law to "police" their marks if they want to maintain their status. They must guard against their marks falling into "generic" status, which, for example, companies like FedEx, Kleenex and even Google must worry about.
Phrases like "I'll FedEx it to you," as opposed to "I'll send it via FedEx" makes a big difference as far as their TM lawyers are concerned.
And if I recall, a few years ago Google was very concerned about the usage of the phrase "I'll Google it." They were worried that "Google it" would become the generic term for any search done in a search engine, thereby duluting their trademark.
And if I recall, a few years ago Google was very concerned about the usage of the phrase "I'll Google it." They were worried that "Google it" would become the generic term for any search done in a search engine, thereby duluting their trademark.
The classic "Aspirin" example is often given but it is a glaring exception because the German based Bayer could not defend its rights in the US because a state of war existed in 1917-18.
Are there any other names that have become generic because they were not defended?
A.
Entities with lots of resources can often get away with such demands because a small company will find it easier to concede than fight. If the small company wins in court after two years but has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and untold management hours, it would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Smaller companies can take the same approach, of course, and back down if someone calls their bluff.
The US House of Representatives has approved a bill that will tighten the law on trade mark dilution in the US, making it easier for trade mark holders to show that their mark has become blurred or tarnished.
The proposed Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 therefore amends the 1995 Federal Trademark Dilution Act by providing that:* likely rather than actual dilution is necessary – creating a lower burden of proof for trade mark owners;
* claimants do not need to show economic injury, competition or “actual or likely confusion”
Trade mark dilution bill moves forward in US [out-law.com]
Certainly of interest...
Syzygy
