Re: Transactions: good or bad?

"Todd Bandrowsky" <anakin_at_unitedsoftworks.com> wrote in message news:af3d9224.0306182046.2ca371fe_at_posting.google.com...
> > "Zipper" lost its trademark status because the original trademark owner
made
> > careless use of the indefinite article in its advertising. Coke has
never
> > fallen into the same trap. They have spent a lot of money developing
their
> > brand, and they protect their investment in all of their trademarks.
>
> That's interesting. I think that there is some overlap between fair
> use and trademark status. Like, I can't make a soda called Coke, but
> I can certainly have a video game where someone smashes people with
> Coke bottles.

There are always gray areas. However, until a case goes before a judge, nobody really knows what the outcome will be. Slim odds don't always deter companies from launching suit, and a defendent has little choice but to defend or submit.

I don't know the specific mechanics in the US (and I am sure it varies from state to state), but I can say from personal experience that Canadian civil courts favour plaintiffs in subtle ways on the principle that plaintiffs have built-in disincentives to launch suit ie. plaintiffs must make a conscious decision to spend money on lawyers whereas defendents have no choice. Received on Thu Jun 19 2003 - 15:45:28 CEST