Comments on: Is Trademark the New Copyright?

By: The Problem With Fighting Plagiarism - PlagiarismToday

The Problem With Fighting Plagiarism - PlagiarismToday — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:37:42 +0000

[...] in the era of free culture, there is still a place for copyright enforcement and it still has a role in protecting authors as they post their works online. However, enforcing [...]

By: JB

JB — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:40:03 +0000

Tiesto: I don’t think that stronger trademark protection will hurt open source per se, as I said I think it is a good move and a good business decision, but that how open source views trademark is a strange contrast to how it views and uses copyright.

I think open source is wise to use trademark to its benefit, but it is easy to forget that trademark’s two siblings are copyright and patent.

By: JB

JB — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:40:03 +0000

Tiesto: I don't think that stronger trademark protection will hurt open source per se, as I said I think it is a good move and a good business decision, but that how open source views trademark is a strange contrast to how it views and uses copyright.I think open source is wise to use trademark to its benefit, but it is easy to forget that trademark's two siblings are copyright and patent.

By: Tiesto

Tiesto — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:29:33 +0000

You tend to allude in your article that stronger trademark protection will affect open source adversely. But I do not think so. The trend toward stronger trademark protection will have a positive affect open source and the Web in the long run in my view.

By: JB

JB — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:07:11 +0000

Trademark dilution is still offense once can sue for. Obviously many feel there is still at least some threat.

Personally though, I’d be happy if people would use my trademark as a generic. Then again, I’d be happy if they used it at all…

RS: Agreed.

By: Recording Studio

Recording Studio — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:27:46 +0000

Heart of hearts all of us would like to get our trademarks become generic indeed. We should be so lucky! Thanks for the prompt reply.

By: JB

JB — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:07:11 +0000

Recliners: While not the biggest problem, it can be one. If a trademark becomes so diluted that it actually becomes a generic, the mark itself can be lost. These are very rare cases and I don't know of any that have happened in recent history, but it is a theoretic possibility.Trademark dilution is still offense once can sue for. Obviously many feel there is still at least some threat.Personally though, I'd be happy if people would use my trademark as a generic. Then again, I'd be happy if they used it at all…RS: Agreed.

By: Recliners

Recliners — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:27:53 +0000

Recording studio, the problem with trademark is not generic usage; when I say “I’m just going to Hoover the carpet�? instead of “I’m just going to vacuum the carpet�? it does not cause any loss or harm to the Hoover trademark. This merely demonstrates how ingrained the association between Hoover and vacuum cleaners is, in the consumer’s mind.

The real difficulty is faced when someone may use a distinctive color scheme, design, logo or other identifying factor which constitutes the trademark of a popular consumer brand to “pass-off�? their own unrelated lesser known (even perhaps inferior) product onto an unsuspecting public.

By: Recliners

Recliners — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:27:53 +0000

Recording studio, the problem with trademark is not generic usage; when I say âIâm just going to Hoover the carpetâ? instead of âIâm just going to vacuum the carpetâ? it does not cause any loss or harm to the Hoover trademark. This merely demonstrates how ingrained the association between Hoover and vacuum cleaners is, in the consumerâs mind.

The real difficulty is faced when someone may use a distinctive color scheme, design, logo or other identifying factor which constitutes the trademark of a popular consumer brand to âpass-offâ? their own unrelated lesser known (even perhaps inferior) product onto an unsuspecting public.

By: JB

JB — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:05:42 +0000

Recliners: I think TM has always been pretty well protected by large companies, at times too much so, but what is different today is that trademark is the business model. The New York Times protects its TM, but only to help it sell more papers. Today, we’re seeing the reverse happen.

Still, protecting trademark more than it already is would be very hard because trademark is so narrowly defined. That is kind of by design considering you can trademark words or phrases but not claim copyright.

However, I do have to agree, there is a need for more enforcement, especially by new companies.

RS: Thanks for the compliments. It is very flattering. Hopefully this will be a topic to revisit in the coming weeks.

To answer your question though, it is almost impossible in this day and age, where everyone is a publisher, to prevent this.

When I was in college and in my journalism law and ethics class, we played a “trademark game” where the prof gave us a list of terms and asked us to pick the ones that were trademarks and the ones that were generic.

We all failed.

All you can do is have a good trademark policy, ensure that your core followers know the rules and that they work to correct mistakes. Even then all you can do is slow the tide, not stop it.

Of course, if you’re so popular you’re worried about your name becoming overused, that’s a pretty good problem to have in the big scheme of things.

Sorry I can’t give a better answer.