[pp.int.general] trademarks

[Reinier Bakels]

> Dear Reinier!
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 07:53:42AM +0200, Reinier Bakels wrote:
> > There is apparently some confusion about trademarks in PP circles.
> > Are trademarks basically OK? Yes and no.
>
> For franchising agreements, they are certainly okay.
>
> The consumer protection aspects of trademarks I feel are better
> covered by other types of legislation, say, the Unfair Business
> Practises directive.
>
> If information, or brands, are to be capitalised, sure, trademarks is
> a pre-requisite, but it's otherwisse not that difficult to imagine a
> brand takeover by for instance taking over the firm assets (like
> production facilities or whatever) of the brand at hand, instead of
> also purchasing their trademark.
>
> I feel trademarks do not appear to be a good idea. At the very least
> we need to reform the legislation surrounding them and amend some of
> the practises at our trademark registrar offices.
>
> The above text is probably influenced by the political idea that
> information doesn't really require a market, at least not one remotely
> close to the one we have today.
>
> /amelia

Let me be straight: I don't think that generally trademarks are an issue 
that deserves political priority (except from some details I have listed in 
my post earlier today).

Tradmarks insofar are different from (most) other forms of "intellectuel 
property" (sorry, RMS!) that they only indirectly  relate to trade in 
information ("market in information"). Trademarks serve the purpose of 
*identification*. Which - to some extent - benefits the consumer. Yes, 
identification requires exclusivity. It is almost philosophical.

On a more practical level, I believe that trademarks are a useful, much less 
harmful alternative to patents. Economists explained to me that even 
generics pharma manufacturers (when the patent has expired) can protect 
their products from undue competition by fostering their indentity and image 
using brand names, e.g. in advertising. It is innocent insofar that there 
are no watertight bounaries - unlike patents. Oh yes, it is not allowed to 
borrow someone elses reputation. But isn't that natural? I like the name 
"Amelia", but I can't call myself Amelia. (but I would get very tired typing 
Andersdotter all the time- twice the number of letters of my surname).

BTW an anecdote: our future queen (born 2003) is called AmAlia 
(http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharina-Amalia_av_Nederl%C3%A4nderna), named 
after a 17th century princess 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalia_of_Solms-Braunfels). There is a special 
office in NL (I don't recall its name right now) that caters for registering 
brand- and domain names in the short period of time between the moment hat a 
new prince(ss) is born and the moment that its name is announced. Otherwise 
there would be a rush afterwards, by al kinds of firms who want to borrow 
from some kind of "royal" image.

Fortunately, there is a special provision in trademark law that allows 
everyone to continue to use its own name even if its is registered as a 
trademark!

reinier