by Mike Masnick
Fri, Jun 13th 2008 2:12pm
We've said it probably 100 times, but trademark was never designed to be about "ownership." Rather, it's always been about consumer protection from fraud: making sure that you didn't buy one product, believing it was made by someone else. Yet, unfortunately, trademark is often lumped into the category of "intellectual property" with patents and copyright, and that falsely leads people to believe that trademarks are about ownership and, with it, full control over the mark. That leads to some really questionable situations, where companies overreach in trying to block others from using their mark. Luckily, some courts are pushing back on this. Steven Hoy writes in to let us know that a European court has ruled that there's absolutely nothing wrong with a company using a competitor's trademark in an advertisement for comparative purposes, just so long as there's no confusion on the part of the customer. This is exactly the way it should be. Hopefully, we'll start seeing European courts use the good old "moron in a hurry" test more frequently. After all, that "moron in a hurry" trademark test was a European invention in the first place.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Blu Cigarettes Sues Blu Ale House Over Blu Logo
- UN Appoints Special Expert To Report On Online Privacy; Surprisingly, US And UK Don't Object
- Let's Do Business: How Lifting The Embargo Has Opened The Door For Cuban Trademark Suits
- Church Site Blocked By Mobile Networks, Classified Under 'Alcohol'
- UK Court Wants To Limit Copyright Trolling... But Not Enough To Stop It Entirely