Boo Hoo.

Zoe, who are you protecting? The consumer? The business holder of the name? Other businesses?

Or Scotland?

The fate of any one pizza company is of so little importance to me that it is impossible to express just how little I care whether they make good pizzas or not.

I believe it could use the Braziliam flag in Brazil, just not in England, where it might be confusing. Now the restaurant named Oscar's in my town is probably not going to get confused with, you know, the ceremoney and the little statue in Hollywood, but there was never an actual law-suit, they caved because they were one little restaurant in wester New York.

Er just to clarify. Petrobras is not a private company. (Well this days it is half private.) Petrobras is owned by the Brazilian state.

But I'm not opposing trademark. Ray's is an example of why a modest trademark law is worthwhile. (Though I note that Ray's is also an example fo why the innovators that most need it will often neglect to use it.) I just want a little sanity and commonsense applied. The only valid purpose of legal protection of a trademark is to prevent confusion. Any reasonable accomdation that can be allowed to let somebody else use the trademark they want, but still clearly avoid confusion should be made. And both trademark and copyright should be viewed as legal protections - not property rights. That would tend to lead to their being enforced in the least rather than most restrictive ways.

Says who? Why shouldn't the Brazilians stick their finger up at UK trademark law and pass a law saying it is fine for any Brazilian oil co. to use the Brazilian flag anytime it likes.

They can do that. Just not in Britain.

The fate of any one pizza company is of so little importance to me that it is impossible to express just how little I care whether they make good pizzas or not.

The fate of any one family is of so little importance to me that it is impossible to express just how little I care whether or not they have a restaurant.

Or something.

Shawn, the "Freedom of Expression" thing was on On The Media this week. It's not online yet, but here's the blurb:

Illegal Art

AT&T used the phrase “Freedom of Expression” as a slogan in a print ad campaign and in doing so gave Kembrew McLeod an opportunity he couldn’t pass up. Asserting that readers might link the AT&T campaign to his long running anti-corporate publication called “Freedom of Expression”, McCloud sent a “cease and desist” letter to AT&T. He has the phrase trademarked, and his trademark certificate is part of an art exhibit called, “Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age”. Kembrew McLeod joins Brooke to discuss the art exhibit that may prove that artists can still make good use of fair use.

The fate of any one pizza company is of so little importance to me that it is impossible to express just how little I care whether they make good pizzas or not.

But the fate of an oil company touches your heart?

The only valid purpose of legal protection of a trademark is to prevent confusion.

This may be your political preference, but it is not a correct representation of trademark law in this country, at least.

Any reasonable accomdation that can be allowed to let somebody else use the trademark they want, but still clearly avoid confusion should be made. And both trademark and copyright should be viewed as legal protections - not property rights.

Property rights ARE legal protections. That's all they are. They are a right to a certain legal protection.

But the fate of an oil company touches your heart?

Not the oil company, the use of the flag. The story doesn't so much touch my heart as piss me off imensely.

OK, I was premature. I thought the suit had been upheld. Apparently it is a not too gross exagerration of other cases. The suit is still pending.

[link]