Techdirt Podcast Episode 47: Trademarks: Intellectual Property Or Consumer Protection?
from the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others dept
Trademark law often gets lumped in with patents and copyright under the “intellectual property” banner, but in fact it’s a different kind of law with an entirely different heritage. That said, it’s not without its dangers, so this week we’re discussing the intent and extent of trademark law and its impacts both positive and negative.
Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.
Comments on “Techdirt Podcast Episode 47: Trademarks: Intellectual Property Or Consumer Protection?”
It’s neither.
It is a speech suppression tool.
Trademarks
“Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism.”
Wrong, Wrong, Wronnnnng
I have a 60 pound ‘Robot Secretary’, branded FORD from 1960. See telephone answering machine, circa 1982, Ford Industries, Inc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC8ynendbv0
BUT ALL Trademarks are DEFINED by the narrow product field you persist in occupying. Stop filling that space, OR attempt to move into another field, YOU MUST TRY TO GET NEW TRADEMARK
A painful listen
This is close to unlistenable. Before the conversation begins you have to weather through over a minute of unrelated ads, the intro and discussion parameters and goals are muddled, the examples and arguments are sophomoric, etc. but the biggest issue is that the participants are constantly talking over each other. It’s painful.
Monster Cable
I almost got the impression from these discussions that when it came to Monster cable suing everyone else over the use of the word Monster that Hirsch would actually support that because we don’t want possible confusion that somebody might somewhere be confused for a few minutes.
Bait and Switch
This e-trademark debate trickery turns on when you think the case’s marketing Bait and Switch is dishonest.
Some folks will say all marketing is bs (even a moron in a hurry knows “buyer beware”) and others will argue that a b&s might turn out to be permissible when it’s, for eg, humorous baiting then softly brand switching. “Yoogle” yogurt is that transparent that it mightn’t be dishonest. Not many folks right now would want Google to successfully assert brand damage from that unknown froyo shop down the street.