Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Early Retirement

blog.watsi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: An Early Retirement

#61

Post by Perdition »

crusso wrote: post #38
jbooth wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's almost like most of our laws were written by a bunch of lawyers.

The requirement to protect your trademark is a good thing.

There are a fairly limited number of useful marks because companies need fairly short names. Imagine if trademarks worked like copyright and modern companies had to worry about infringing the mark of a company that hasn't traded since 1940?

Re: An Early Retirement

#62

Post by arthurcolle »

chimeracoder wrote: post #10
will_brown wrote: post #6

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…

> 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 As I noted in my post, though, marks don't have to be registered in order to be protected. Even if BCBS doesn't have any instances of the blue cross alone registered with the USPTO[0], that doesn't mean that BCBS couldn't still…

can you provide me with relevant case law where "seemingly" clearer cut cases have gone the other way? im just curious. honestly, it seems crazy that just because a company uses a blue cross, no other companies can use a blue cross. bcbs' logo has a person on it and watsi's has a triangle. this is literally baffling to me. they aren't even remotely related, except tangentially through, what, human health? i mean, i "get it" but wow. no words.

Re: An Early Retirement

#63

Post by arthurcolle »

will_brown wrote: post #15
chimeracoder wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 As I noted in my post, though, marks don't have to be registered in order to be protected. Even if BCBS doesn't have any instances of the blue cross alone registered with the USPTO[0], that doesn't mean that BCBS couldn't still…

>TESS (the USPTO database search) sucks. 100% agree with you. A story I have told a few times on HN was getting a C&D letter for the use of the mark "blood" on a previous product I manufactured, and a basic search on TESS of "blood" will not turn up the registered mark (turns up a lot of other marks that include blood, but not blood by itself) I can only find it searching the registration number. Watsi is being class…

are you the blood energy drink guy?

Re: An Early Retirement

#64

Post by DannyBee »

jbooth wrote: post #21
will_brown wrote: post #6

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…

"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."

This is mostly false as a concept, and false as written. It's pretty much a fiction trademark lawyers use to try to convince people they really like them, but they have to be suing them now.

There is no special "if you don't sue people, you lose" defense for trademarks, on that front it's the same laches defense as anything else.

About the only thing you risk is loss of distinctiveness, and only then if you are not otherwise doing things to try to maintain brand distinctiveness.

In fact, there is a specific "doctrine of progressive encroachment" that allows you to let people minimally invade, and only sue for infringement when there use expands past something small and minimal.

Even in cases where all of this fails, nobody has "lost a mark" except to genericness (which is unpreventable, in reality). The last case i'm aware of to confront this issue, the defendant was still barred from using the mark in the future, the plaintiff just got no money damages.

boo hoo.

Re: An Early Retirement

#65

Post by prawn »

josefresco wrote: post #45
timjahn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Health insurance companies in the United States don't exist to help people with medical problems. They exist to make as much money as possible.

Everybody's got to make a living ... even your doctor.

Big companies tend to go a little beyond just making a living. The doctor and support staff at that level are working with patients.

At a larger company, you have swathes of employees detached from the customer and focused on the numbers. I think that's probably where the empathy for customers can become unstuck.

Re: An Early Retirement

#68

Post by trysomething »

qq66 wrote: post #60
lauradhamilton wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yours is not so much a legal question as it is a negotiation question. I think you're probably right, but brinkmanship would be incredibly time-consuming, stressful, and distracting. They have more important things to worry about right now. If your question is, who would win the battle in the court of public opinion? For sure Watsi would win. No doubt in my mind.

How relevant is the court of public opinion in a matter like this? Seems like Watsi realized they had more to lose than gain.

It might actually be great publicity. Watsi is awesome, but not well known amongst the general populace (who are probably far more likely to donate to dubious organizations like the "christian children's fund").

As Chase Adam said in his startup school speech, Watsi merely has to get people to look at it's patients' pictures and read their stories.

Re: An Early Retirement

#69

Post by GFischer »

runewell wrote: post #14

I remember when looking for a new company domain feeling like this SNL comedy skit: http://vimeo.com/82393638 Medical companies are ruthless here. I ran an e-commerce store that sold medical equipment, it was nearly impossible to buy any .com domain name related to the medical industry. We ended up settling with JazzMed because one of our founders liked Jazz and we figured it was a unique brand. We ran the company fo…

Naming is such a problem in the medical space, there are special provisions for trademarking medicines (class 5 marks), where they can be similar as long as they are used for very different ailments and there's no risk of confusion.

It's still extremely hard, see this PDF:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/mdd/v05/i08/pdf/802pat...

(Standard disclaimer - IANAL)

Re: An Early Retirement

#70

Post by Steko »

bbanyc wrote: post #53
will_brown wrote: post #6

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…

BCBS isn't a company. It's an association of a few dozen regional companies, some of which have their own word marks - Empire BCBS in New York is a separate company from CareFirst BCBS in Maryland, and so on. In some areas, like California, the local Blue Cross never merged with the local Blue Shield and they remain separate. There are a lot of different possible trademark holders to check. I did some TESS digging of…

Bingo. As someone who works for a non-profit Blue Cross organization I find the outrage ITT incredibly misplaced. I could make a great charity of feeding burgers and fries to homeless people but if I chose a golden M for my charity's logo that's just a mistake on my part and I'm going to get a call from the McDowell's people.

Yes we all love Watsi and they deserve nothing but praise for their work. They made a small goof on the logo and are fixing it and even finding a way to turn a small misstep into a positive.

Post reply on HN