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

Backcountry.com Fires Trademark Attorneys

coloradosun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: Backcountry.com Fires Trademark Attorneys

#11

Post by flatline »

post_break wrote: post #5

Too little too late. Been munching on popcorn watching all my camping and hiking forums and communities coming together saying they are done buying from them.

It seems like a legitimate start. IANAL but you do have to defend your trademark or risk losing it. This is an inherent danger of using a common word in a trademark...

Re: Backcountry.com Fires Trademark Attorneys

#12

Post by azdle »

> Nielsen, while saying “everything is on hold,” stopped short of promising to terminate the petitions for cancellation the company’s IPLA attorney John Kim filed with the USPTO. Nielsen said he would be reaching out to every business targeted in those petitions to discuss how they can work together.

So, they still think they own the generic term "backcountry" and that others need their permission to use it. Nothing has changed.

Re: Backcountry.com Fires Trademark Attorneys

#13

Post by soulofmischief »

flatline wrote: post #11
post_break wrote: post #5

Too little too late. Been munching on popcorn watching all my camping and hiking forums and communities coming together saying they are done buying from them.

It seems like a legitimate start. IANAL but you do have to defend your trademark or risk losing it. This is an inherent danger of using a common word in a trademark...

> This is an inherent danger of using a common word in a trademark...

You shouldn't be able to trademark a common word in the first place. It's literary colonialism.

Re: Backcountry.com Fires Trademark Attorneys

#15

Post by msla »

soulofmischief wrote: post #13
flatline wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a legitimate start. IANAL but you do have to defend your trademark or risk losing it. This is an inherent danger of using a common word in a trademark...

> This is an inherent danger of using a common word in a trademark... You shouldn't be able to trademark a common word in the first place. It's literary colonialism.

Trademarks need to be limited to being consumer protection: A company can only own a word or design or color scheme to the extent it prevents bad actors from fooling customers with deceptively similar names and trade dress. This has the positive side-effect of preventing those same bad actors from harming the company which owns the trademark, but that should be seen as a side-effect, and not as the primary purpose of trademarks.

Re: Backcountry.com Fires Trademark Attorneys

#16

Post by mc32 »

soulofmischief wrote: post #13
flatline wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a legitimate start. IANAL but you do have to defend your trademark or risk losing it. This is an inherent danger of using a common word in a trademark...

> This is an inherent danger of using a common word in a trademark... You shouldn't be able to trademark a common word in the first place. It's literary colonialism.

Ford, Apple, Sharp, Adobe, National, Amazon, Sun, Oracle, etc. all are generic terms.

Re: Backcountry.com Fires Trademark Attorneys

#17

Post by soulofmischief »

mc32 wrote: post #16
soulofmischief wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is an inherent danger of using a common word in a trademark... You shouldn't be able to trademark a common word in the first place. It's literary colonialism.

Ford, Apple, Sharp, Adobe, National, Amazon, Sun, Oracle, etc. all are generic terms.

However, if you look at the trademarks themselves, they have very limited scope and also require specific visual differentiators. The word "Adobe" isn't trademarked, but so that I don't buy the wrong Adobe which is actually malware, it is illegal to advertise or commercially distribute creative digital software bearing the name Adobe and copying its visual likeness. But I could start my own Spanish-themed footwear company called Adobe Footwear. Adobe itself is not trademarked.

Re: Backcountry.com Fires Trademark Attorneys

#18

Post by yabadabadoes »

mc32 wrote: post #16
soulofmischief wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is an inherent danger of using a common word in a trademark... You shouldn't be able to trademark a common word in the first place. It's literary colonialism.

Ford, Apple, Sharp, Adobe, National, Amazon, Sun, Oracle, etc. all are generic terms.

I don't think any of these are from generic terms from within their trade.

Re: Backcountry.com Fires Trademark Attorneys

#20

Post by mthoms »

siphor wrote: post #8
post_break wrote: post #5

Too little too late. Been munching on popcorn watching all my camping and hiking forums and communities coming together saying they are done buying from them.

I thought this was a pretty solid response. Out of curiosity, is there anything that you think is "enough" to change your mind?

Abandon all claims, compensate those already affected, and force the CEO to tender his resignation.
Post reply on HN