Twitter crusaders of the lost idols1/6/2024 For this reason, talking about more certain negatives makes sense. I suspect that those who are inclined to reach this conclusion do so because - like the airline in-flight warnings about turning off electronic devices - they don’t believe the plane will go down if they “forget” to turn them off, or that genericide will occur, if they fail to police trademark infringers. When faced with what they perceive to be a “highly remote” risk of genericide, it is far too easy to say, “we’ll take our chances,” the benefits of permitting others to “build off the brand” are worth it and outweigh the risk of genericide, or we’ll be “ super rich” by then anyway. Over the years, I have found that using the “worst case scenario” - trademark genericide - is probably not the most effective way to help brand managers and marketers appreciate that consistently enforcing their trademark rights against infringing uses is not only a good legal strategy, but a sound business strategy too. So, not only does this viewpoint ignore the resulting confusion among consumers, and the relinquishing of a brand’s goodwill to another without the ability to control reputation and image, it also ignores the certain and inevitable shrinking or narrowing of the scope of trademark rights even if those trademark rights aren’t lost altogether. While it is true that genericide is the ultimate risk of a complete failure to stop infringements to the point where the word “twitter” no longer functions as a trademark to indicate source and is found to be abandoned, that highly dramatic and extreme result is not the only legal trademark concern other more certain damage results along the way. People (often lawyers) seem to think that just because you can block a business for using a trademark, that it’s a good business decision to do so.”Īctually, there is more (or less) to risk or lose than Twitter being declared generic and part of the public domain for anyone (including direct competitors) to freely use without consequence. Especially in cases where it’s clearly not making the brand generic, but simply building off of the brand, it can be a much smarter move to let it live on. “As people always like to point out, trademark law requires you to “protect” your mark to keep it from being declared generic, but that does not (as many assume) mean that you absolutely have to sue or threaten anyone who makes use of your mark. In defending Twitter’s apparent “openness” in permitting others who are “simply building off the brand,” Mike Masnik of Techdirt has argued: The irony of this is hard not to find amusing, given how Twitter explains its reason for existence this way: “Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?” For Twitter, only time will tell how “simple” the trademark enforcement “question” is for itself to answer.Īpparently the folks at Techdirt haven’t seen the shooting target graphic illustration either. Distilling these criticisms to their essence, basically there are more than a few folks out there asking Twitter: “ What are you doing?” Judging from the robust criticism Twitter has received about its lax or laissez-faire approach to trademark enforcement, the Twitter folks have never seen (or perhaps they have chosen to ignore) the shooting target graphic illustration. A shooting target formed by a series of concentric circles is the best graphic I have found to illustrate the legal answer to their frequent question. Brand managers and marketers often wonder about the risks and consequences of not enforcing or protecting their trademarks from infringement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |