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]
Zoe, suppose you wrote a book and became and beloved famous author. You wouldn't want some person who didn't care about writing to put your name on a book to take advantage of your work and your ideas would you? That's what copyright and trademrk laws are for. To protect the creators--the people who do the actual work--whether that work is writing a book or making pizza. I think creators and innovators deserve to be protected and their work respected. Of course corporations will take advantage of the laws, but they protect individuals as well.
OK, from the little I have been able to glean, it seems he has registered "freedom of expression": likely as a trademark in a certain area, like publishing a magazine. Just the way that parents has been trademarked for Parents magazine, but parents is not a trademark. It would not be upheld as protectable as against AT&T: it's not even a strong mark, and it never will be.
eta: I have not found proof of his registration, however; he merely claims it and NYT has reported it as such. I still find it less than credible that that phrase is markable, but there have been lots of registered marks that did not pass a court challenge.
I'm all for getting stinking rich but I'm trying to remember the real rules too. Not crushing the little people is one and not making enemies of entire nation states by dissing their flag is probably another one.
Zoe, do you have a link to an article about the McDonald's lawsuit? I wanted to find out what the details were, and I tried googling, but I couldn't find any good sources.
Not crushing the little people is one and not making enemies of entire nation states by dissing their flag is probably another one.
yet again, I will try to make the distinction clear.
They are prevented from using the colors of the flag to sell oil in Britain.
That's all.
There's no dissing of a nation, a culture, a flag, or a heritage. Just one thing. A trademark.
Zoe, do you have a link to an article about the McDonald's lawsuit? I wanted to find out what the details were, and I tried googling, but I couldn't find any good sources.
No, truth is my sources are hearsay and urban myth.
