[pp.int.general] Fake Rolex

[Jouni Snellman]

We shouldn´t forget the original meaning of trademarks: to provide useful
information about the product. When the King ordered swords for his army, he
wanted them to be individually signed by whoever made them....  Compare that
with today´s situation. What is a fake Rolex anyway? or a fake Nokia? Global
trademarks make it possible for the corporations to hide behind the bamboo
curtain.

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Edison Carter <
the.real.edison.carter at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Mikko Särelä wrote:
> >> Or perhaps, we shouldn't have trademark laws that are designed to
> protect
> >> companies. Instead we could have laws that protect consumers from
> >> fraudulent naming of products (e.g. naming things so that the consumer
> is
> >> likely to mistake the product for another).
> >>
> >> It is the consumer who suffers and who should be compensate instead of
> the
> >> big corps.
> >
> > That would be only a slight change in the idea of trademarks. I like it.
> :)
> >
>
> It's just a matter of focus; trademark law protects both the consumer
> (buying fake rolexes) and the companies (cheap imitations taking
> advantage of Rolex's name) .. and I don't think there's anything wrong
> with either purpose as long as we have a clear recognition if what
> Trademark is supposed to be for and maintain a balance where
> protecting the consumer is given at least equal priority.
>
> There may occasionally be companies with a good reputation who get
> bought out and start selling 'crap' products, at which time consumers
> will still have some protection through other laws such as the
> Consumer Guarantees Act (in New Zealand) or similar laws elsewhere,
> but on the whole companies who have built up a reputation for quality
> usually want to protect that reputation.
>
> Yes there are idiotic cases such as Renault, Monster Cable, and almost
> anything involving the Olympics. That's not an inherent fault of
> Trademark law itself, that's a failure to recognise what trademark is
> and isn't... companies and lawyers thinking about trademark as
> "Intellectual Property" rather than "reputation" or "Identity". I
> don't think there needs to be any major change in Trademark law
> itself, just that the courts need to more consistently apply the
> principle "would a typical consumer/customer (moron in a hurry) be
> confused by this" -- There's no risk that a child named Megan Renaud
> is going to confuse anyone into buying a car from the wrong company.
> There's no chance that anyone will accidentally buy overpriced speaker
> cables from "Monster Mini-putt". And f*ck it, the entire modern
> Olympics needs to just die in a fire.
>
> And yes, if consumers want to buy a $300 "iPod" instead of an equal
> quality and less restricted generic mp3 player for a third of the
> price I don't really see that as a problem either. They should have
> just as much right as anyone else to know that they're getting a
> genuine Apple® iPod®. I defend the consumer's right to be sheep if
> they want to!!
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20100414/7d24b84d/attachment.htm>