How Trademark Law Has Turned From A Consumer Protection Law, Into A Weapon To Hinder Competition
from the abuse-of-the-system dept
Trademark lawyer Ron Coleman, who runs the excellent Likelihood of Confusion blog, has now written a paper that highlights his concerns about where trademark law has been trending recently, and comparing it to the excesses of copyright law these days. The first part of the paper details just how ridiculous copyright law has become lately, way outside of its Constitutional moorings. For example, he highlights the serious problems and misunderstandings of the purpose behind statutory damages by the court, to produce awards that make little sense, and clearly go beyond the law's intended purpose:
Under the Copyright Act, statutory damages are, contrary to popular belief, not intended to be a windfall for the lucky holder of an infringed copyright. Rather, they are meant to effect just compensation that bears a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages that may be difficult or impossible to prove, albeit with an added consideration--added, but not disproportionately dominant--of the need to deter future infringement.And, unfortunately, rather than recognizing the problems of this kind of excess, trademark law appears to be moving in that same direction:
In fact, statutory damages are not penalties. The purpose of statutory damages is to permit a wronged plaintiff to recover where there is insufficient proof of actual damages or profits. Substantial damages are, the courts typically hold, only be awarded for substantial injury.
Yet something--it is not obvious what this something is--within the judicial system keeps fighting against these fundamentally fair principles, and doing so with increasing vigor. Only months ago a jury awarded $2 million--little more collectible than "all the money in the world"--to the Lords of Music for what was indeed knowing copyright infringement of two dozen songs.
Many "IP enforcement" attorneys believe that while there is no shortage of bona fide infringement to occupy at least a large number of them, trademark law practice has, to a very large extent, descended to an anti-competitive methodology utilized by dominant market players not to prevent consumer confusion, as was its original rationale, but to reduce consumer choice and overall welfare by preventing competition.Combined, Coleman notes, copyright and trademark law have both become unhinged and threaten legitimate business interests:
The civil litigation system was not designed for the use of large companies to put small enterprises out of business, but it is perfectly suited for doing so. Copyright and trademark law, in tandem and with reference to each other, were meant to protect, respectively, creativity and reputation or consumer interests. They were crafted to apply to narrow bands of behavior affecting specifically identified bundles of rights. The enterprise of convincing a court to invoke them and restrain the behavior of others once required admissible and reasonably rigorous proof of infringement consistent with ancient Anglo-Saxon judicial norms. Today, however, trademark and copyright are methodologies of "IP enforcement," and even of censorship. Notwithstanding the existence, and even the growth, of real threats to intellectual property rights, especially in copyright, strategies for abusing IP claims to achieve entirely unrelated tactical goals are utilized routinely, formulaically, and often successfully.Those are just a few snippets from the overall paper, which is an excellent read.
The Internet has provided a post-industrial economy with once unimaginable vistas of entrepreneurial possibility. Yet the more central the Internet becomes to the economy, the more of a threat its relatively untamed nature is to companies with the most to lose to innovators.