John Bokma wrote:
> "Ryan P." <rpaque@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> That's one of the reasons why huge companies like Disney and Warner
>> Brothers send Cease and Desist letters to anyone who even THINKS about
>> using them as some sort of promotion without permission.
>
> Trademark/copyright infringement, not patents. While your statement
> might be true for patents as well, the last paragraph talks about
> trademark/copyright infringement.
Actually, just trademarks. Assuming we're still talking about this:
| And unfortunately, once you allow one company to get
| away with infringement, it becomes harder to legally
| enforce it the next time.
It is only trademarks that you need to enforce to protect. With copyright,
you can let a million people infringe it and then turn around and sue the
million-and-oneth. Ditto patents.
The reason trademarks are different is that they are designed for a
different reason: consumer protection. Companies that hold trademarks are
in effect saying, "this brand name is a guarantee of the kind of quality
you would associate with our company". If their competitors start using
the trademark then the brand, and thus the guarantee is diluted. If they
want to start suing several years later, they'll find themselves in a
difficult position legally -- they can't sue against someone using their
brand if the brand is so diluted that it's become meaningless.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 34 days, 22:40.]
Bottled Water
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/02/18/bottled-water/
|
