For United States trademarks, not necessarily. You don’t have to enforce the trademark to keep it; you just have to renew it on time.
The problem with not enforcing the trademark is that it opens the term up to genericization (for example, referring to all types of tissues as Kleenex). Genericization will cause a company to lose the trademark.
I don’t think kik was worried about that. It’s more likely they were bullying the guy into giving up the package name.
I’m not sure you are right. There seem to be an awful lot of lawyers phrasing it less clearly.
Trademarks require constant vigilance. The moment you let your guard down, there’s a chance that someone else might swoop in and use your trademark without permission. This unauthorized usage could lead to confusion among customers and weaken the association between the trademark and the company it represents. Therefore, defending your trademark should be a top priority.
It’s been a few years since I dug through trademark law trying to find an answer to this question, but from my understanding, as long as the trademark isn’t abandoned, doesn’t become genericized, and is renewed, it doesn’t have to be strictly enforced through litigation.
You only really need to enforce your trademark when there’s a chance of it causing confusion about whether goods produced by some other party are actually produced by the trademark holder (which is the scenario your quote is talking about). Take “Apple,” for example. I can’t sell any software or electronics with the name “Apple” on it without infringing on Apple, Inc.'s trademark, but I can sell “Farmer Tim’s Golden Delicious Apples” without issue. If Apple tried to enforce their trademark on a box of apples, they wouldn’t be successful. If they tried to enforce their trademark on Tim Apple’s iJuicer Pro, they probably would succeed.
Anyway, I think a lot of the confusion about this comes from trademark law being oversimplified into the phrase “use it or lose it.” That’s strictly true when it comes to actually using the trademark, but it’s not actually a requirement to liberally enforce it.
That might be true regardless of copyright law :)
A sad truth. You don’t need to win when you can bury your opposition in legal costs (or threats of).
I’m sure it violates other professional conduct rules, but at the very least, intentionally misleading a client or omitting information would likely be considered a lack of competence.
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
Thanks for your reply. I’m inclined to believe you, as it seems more likely that this was a case of corporate bullshit and not a case of “alas, our hands are tied”.
For United States trademarks, not necessarily. You don’t have to enforce the trademark to keep it; you just have to renew it on time.
The problem with not enforcing the trademark is that it opens the term up to genericization (for example, referring to all types of tissues as Kleenex). Genericization will cause a company to lose the trademark.
I don’t think kik was worried about that. It’s more likely they were bullying the guy into giving up the package name.
I’m not sure you are right. There seem to be an awful lot of lawyers phrasing it less clearly.
Source
This might be done on purpose of course to attract clients.
That might be true regardless of copyright law :)
It’s been a few years since I dug through trademark law trying to find an answer to this question, but from my understanding, as long as the trademark isn’t abandoned, doesn’t become genericized, and is renewed, it doesn’t have to be strictly enforced through litigation.
You only really need to enforce your trademark when there’s a chance of it causing confusion about whether goods produced by some other party are actually produced by the trademark holder (which is the scenario your quote is talking about). Take “Apple,” for example. I can’t sell any software or electronics with the name “Apple” on it without infringing on Apple, Inc.'s trademark, but I can sell “Farmer Tim’s Golden Delicious Apples” without issue. If Apple tried to enforce their trademark on a box of apples, they wouldn’t be successful. If they tried to enforce their trademark on Tim Apple’s iJuicer Pro, they probably would succeed.
Anyway, I think a lot of the confusion about this comes from trademark law being oversimplified into the phrase “use it or lose it.” That’s strictly true when it comes to actually using the trademark, but it’s not actually a requirement to liberally enforce it.
A sad truth. You don’t need to win when you can bury your opposition in legal costs (or threats of).
I just had a thought: is it legal for lawyers to say half-truths to get clients to use them more and thus earn more money?
That’s how you get disbarred for misconduct.
I’m sure it violates other professional conduct rules, but at the very least, intentionally misleading a client or omitting information would likely be considered a lack of competence.
Thanks for your reply. I’m inclined to believe you, as it seems more likely that this was a case of corporate bullshit and not a case of “alas, our hands are tied”.