[pp.int.general] Fake Rolex

[Edison Carter]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Richard Stallman <rms at gnu.org> wrote:
>    There is a difference between trademarks that are by nature unacceptable,
>    and unacceptable use of trademarkes that are OK by nature, but used in an
>    undesirable way. The directive prevents the former, the examples are in the
>    latter category.
>
> I think the latter is the issue people are looking for a way to
> prevent and which is the basis for some of the opposition to trademark
> law in this list.
>

It's self regulating. If a formerly good brand 'sells out',
franchises, licences the trademark or whatever then they very quickly
lose the reputation that they spent a long time building up. Customers
who feel ripped off in this way will say so on internationally
circulated mailing lists for example, so that everyone knows to beware
of that brand. ;) Companies who do this are very short-sighted, it
takes time and money to build a good brand and very little to destroy
it.

I think the idea of trademarks and branding is far too well
established to replace it with something else, and I think on the
balance it's generally a good thing anyway. A small number of
customers may be ripped off by by dodgy franchising that you describe,
but I am sure there are a much greater number who, thanks to trademark
law are able to purchase a 'reputable' brand and get exactly what they
expected.