31–40 of 76 posts
Isn't this akin to waving a stack of cash right in front of lawyer's nose?
Is watsi's only saving grace the fact that they are not directly profiting from these t-shirt sales?
Seems kindof risky, no?
I'm assuming the company in question is Blue Cross Blue Shield. This kind of sucks, but looking at their logo[0], I would have to agree that they're uncomfortably close, if they are deemed to be in similar enough markets. The only question is whether Watsi and BCBS operate within similar enough markets for their use to be considered infringement - I'm less sure of that. On a related note, this is why early-stage star…
Nah, doesn't sound like Blue Cross at all.
Not sarcastic. Completely serious. IBX costs a fuckton, but is really great insurance.
So wants watsi to stop using their logo by date X, and watsi proceeds to print that logo on t-shirts and sell that logo-laden t-shirt. Isn't this akin to waving a stack of cash right in front of lawyer's nose? Is watsi's only saving grace the fact that they are not directly profiting from these t-shirt sales? Seems kindof risky, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assumed the same company as you. However, I fall on the other side of the analysis, that Watsi is 1. not interfering with any trademarks registered by BCBS (all BCBS registered marks, which I found in TESS, are word/design marks, which means the blue cross on its own is not protected, it is only protected when it is accompanied by the word mark); and 2. otherwise not causing any confusion in the markplace (for exam…
Yeah, using a plus-symbol for healthcare-related things really shouldn't be protectable under trademark law, considering it's been in use since the 1864 Geneva Convention.
So wants watsi to stop using their logo by date X, and watsi proceeds to print that logo on t-shirts and sell that logo-laden t-shirt. Isn't this akin to waving a stack of cash right in front of lawyer's nose? Is watsi's only saving grace the fact that they are not directly profiting from these t-shirt sales? Seems kindof risky, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assumed the same company as you. However, I fall on the other side of the analysis, that Watsi is 1. not interfering with any trademarks registered by BCBS (all BCBS registered marks, which I found in TESS, are word/design marks, which means the blue cross on its own is not protected, it is only protected when it is accompanied by the word mark); and 2. otherwise not causing any confusion in the markplace (for exam…
An additional note, trademark lawyers are often obligated to try and sue people over trademarks, even if they'd rather not, because if they don't zealously defend their trademark, it's considered 'weakened' and that can then become evidence against them in some future case when a different party infringes. So the blue cross people were doing what they had to do. It sure is funny though how almost every law is interpr…
I can't help but think how it is non-profit, but ONLY after investors and founders are paid good sums of money. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I am just saying it is shady.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assumed the same company as you. However, I fall on the other side of the analysis, that Watsi is 1. not interfering with any trademarks registered by BCBS (all BCBS registered marks, which I found in TESS, are word/design marks, which means the blue cross on its own is not protected, it is only protected when it is accompanied by the word mark); and 2. otherwise not causing any confusion in the markplace (for exam…
An additional note, trademark lawyers are often obligated to try and sue people over trademarks, even if they'd rather not, because if they don't zealously defend their trademark, it's considered 'weakened' and that can then become evidence against them in some future case when a different party infringes. So the blue cross people were doing what they had to do. It sure is funny though how almost every law is interpr…
So wants watsi to stop using their logo by date X, and watsi proceeds to print that logo on t-shirts and sell that logo-laden t-shirt. Isn't this akin to waving a stack of cash right in front of lawyer's nose? Is watsi's only saving grace the fact that they are not directly profiting from these t-shirt sales? Seems kindof risky, no?
My guess is they need to get rid of the shirts soon, or else they can no longer use them.