[pp.int.general] trademarks

[Christian Hufgard]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> Names and logos aren't less dangerous. The last well known cause in
>> germany was Jack Wolfskin
>> (http://www.jack-wolfskin.com/desktopdefault.aspx). They tried to sue
>> various people for selling stuff with an paw on it.
> And were they successful? Did these people perhaps indeed try to benefit
> from Jack Wolfskin reputation?

The media attention was a little bit to much for them, so they gave up
the cases. And those people just sold stuff with paws on it.


>> Intel sued various people for using the word "inside", and remember the
>> company that tries to own the "I"? German Telekom won several cases for
>> the color magenta.
> If you try to sell telecom products using this typical magenta colour,
> yes, it may be unfair competition. But trademark law does not prevent
> you from selling magenta toilet paper - to name just a product.
> Trademark law distinguishes by product group. (I was actually suprised
> when someone was caught by customes with Louis Vuitton toilet paper -
> because LV does not sell toilet paper itself. (And it is ugly. But that
> is a matter of taste. I hate LV)).
> 
> I would be surprised if "xxx inside" really infringes the "Intel inside"
> trademark, because it is by and large descriptive. Would the designation
> "AMD inside" create confusion? (which is decisve for trademark
> infringement)? I would say: rather the opposite.
> 
> That reminds me of Peugeot, with its x0y seris of cars, objecting
> against Porsche using "901" designation. So Porsche chose "911" (which
> nowadays has a very special meaning, but that is something else). With
> the confusion creterion, think of someone planning to buy a Peugot, and
> then, when rhe returns home notices that - by mistake - he bought a
> Porsche. Yes, he was suprised about the price, but did not notice he
> bought a Porsche instead of a Peugeot ...

Well... Laws cannot protect peoples from being dumb. Trademarks were
once a good idea, as patents have been. But nowadays they are in too
many cased no longer used to protect customers from fraud but to fight
potential attacters of a trademark. Or to fraud the customers itself by
using the brand for cheap stuff.

Christian