Comment by suspended_state

Comment by suspended_state 9 days ago

2 replies

So, for a product to be trademarked, it requires some form of success, IIRC. If you make and try to sell a product in good faith, but nobody wants to buy it, you have no case for a trademark. That's weird.

I could see the reason if there's no evidence of (constructive) work being done (so a clear indication of someone holding on the trademark, ie. squatting, IIRC).

Now, if I had a forward looking business spirit, I could perhaps conceive the idea on combining a hobby of mine with trademark squatting to masquerade it, so perhaps this isn't so strange after all.

kube-system 9 days ago

> nobody wants to buy it, you have no case for a trademark. That's weird.

It may seem weird if you're thinking about it from the perspective of a business owner trying to protect their brand. That's why a business would want one. But it isn't why they exist. The legal basis of trademarks isn't brand or business protection, but consumer protection.

The point of a trademark is to protect consumers from being fooled or misled. If there are no consumers, then there's nobody to protect.

  • suspended_state a day ago

    > The point of a trademark is to protect consumers from being fooled or misled. If there are no consumers, then there's nobody to protect.

    The other company doesn't have consumer either with this name, so why should the trademark be revoked? And if it had, shouldn't it be guilty of trademark infringement?