Dear Instagram

Post by grabeh » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 5:44 PM UTC

philsnow wrote: post #114

grabeh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My example is how it would work in the absence of any trade mark registrations. I incorrectly assumed there were no registrations in place here. Having checked, yes, the presence of a registration would greatly improve Bolt's leverage in the manner you describe.

Registering a mark with the USPTO is _absolutely not required_ to have standing for an ownership claim, even if another party goes to USPTO and registers your mark or a similar one.

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:09 PM UTC

enthdegree wrote: post #110

The #1 way to spot a mushy web3.0 social startup is to see if they named their product a generic, overloaded dictionary word. This is a really irritating recent trend. Every time I see one of these I can almost hear the 'profile picture in a circle' of the CEO pitching the name to me: 'its a really utilitarian, no-nonsense product for People Who Just Get It Done, like me & my team, so naming it out of the common Engl…

Post by baldajan » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:54 PM UTC

bhandziuk wrote: post #90

grabeh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key issue is over whether or not the mark has a widespread reputation/is well-known. If I am able to show my mark has either, then if someone makes use of a similar/identical mark but for completely different services/goods then I can restrain that other party's use if I can show that their use takes unfair advantage of my mark. For example if Microsoft Combine Harvesters popped up, it would be relatively straigh…

Interesting. So what is Microsoft Combine Harvesters was founded before Microsoft Corporation yes the latter became larger faster? Even though Microsoft Corp is larger they were also later to the game. Can they try to get exclusive rights to Microsoft?

Post by baldajan » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 7:05 PM UTC

Post by grabeh » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 8:34 PM UTC

philsnow wrote: post #128

grabeh wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that although yes, the incumbent would be able to bring a claim, in the absence of a registered trade mark, a claim on the trade mark would be based on the established goodwill in the name. It would then be open to the alleged infringer to argue the incumbent lacked the necessary goodwill.

I went and read up a tiny bit and learned about the requirement of showing that goodwill has been taken advantage of. You are indeed correct, sorry to come off as argumentative. It "only" took me one back-and-forth before I went and checked my facts.