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

Comedian changes name to Hugo Boss to challenge trademark law

instagram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Comedian changes name to Hugo Boss to challenge trademark law

#41

Post by mcv »

justaguyhere wrote: post #36
mcv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope this got laughed out of court as hard as possible. It should only be a trademark issue when they're likely to be confused. That's not remotely likely here.

UK will likely lose, but what will it change though? The little guy has to spend time and money defending themselves and go through the stress that comes along with it. UK probably will write the costs off and sue someone else.

That's exactly why I want this thrown out of court as hard as possible, rather than an expensive court case, even if it can be won. This stuff is just harassment by the big corporations and showing off their power.

Re: Comedian changes name to Hugo Boss to challenge trademark law

#42

Post by bloak »

thom wrote: post #6
OJFord wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GP means that it's a (probably registered) trademark , which is distinct from 'copyright'.

And, at the very least, it means that Hugo can't get a passport using his new name: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

That's a strange rule! It's the definite article in "the owner of that trademark" that confuses me. The same word could be a registered trademark in each of about 45 classes, with a different owner for each mark.

Perhaps the next logical step for this comedian is to find a class in which Hugo Boss is not registered and register his own trademark in that class. Then he can give himself permission to use his own name. Or something. I actually have no idea how the rule in the the linked document would be applied in practice. Perhaps in practice they don't care about trademarks if the name is an ordinary name, like "John Smith", for example. Which is almost certainly also a trademark ... I've just checked (https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmtext): JOHN SMITH matches a bunch of different trademarks, and if you include JOHN SMITH'S then there are even more of them.

Re: Comedian changes name to Hugo Boss to challenge trademark law

#43

Post by wombatpm »

kjakm wrote: post #7

1. It's a trademark issue, not copyright. 2. Don't companies have an obligation to defend their trademark or risk not being able to defend them in the future?

Yes but..

There was a time when McDonald's was being a major jerk about trademark lawsuits. Then THE MCDONALD of the the clan MCDONALD had a talk with them about being reasonable. Haven't been as many stupid lawsuits since then . . .

Re: Comedian changes name to Hugo Boss to challenge trademark law

#44

Post by zenexer »

cs02rm0 wrote: post #32
zenexer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do that, you’ll be facing a UDRP. You’ll be out a domain plus legal fees.

Chill out Hugo, it was a joke.

Fair enough. ;) But if it wasn't obvious to me, it probably wasn't obvious to other readers; a disclaimer can't hurt.

Re: Comedian changes name to Hugo Boss to challenge trademark law

#45

Post by tomhoward »

vidarh wrote: post #37
tomhoward wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His accusation is that Hugo Boss are going well beyond reasonable defense of their trademark The problem is that this question ultimately hinges on a court's judgment, and they can't know in advance what evidence of "reasonable defense of their trademark" will satisfy all the judges in all the cases where this issue is examined. So from the trademark-holder's point of view, the approach has to be to do everything t…

You have a much less aggressive option: "Hey, we think your use of is a bit too close for comfort. We recognize it's not actually problem but it's in both our interest to avoid trademark dilution issues; let's discuss some minor changes and nail down an agreement". Then both sides can point to the agreement if someone else tries to use that usage as a defense. The real issue is not that they're communicating with peo…

I don’t know anything about the specific cases.

But how does any of us know there’s a way the could handle this in a less hostile way and still be safe before the courts?

Are there examples of other companies doing it substantially better?

Re: Comedian changes name to Hugo Boss to challenge trademark law

#46

Post by Hamuko »

justaguyhere wrote: post #36
mcv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope this got laughed out of court as hard as possible. It should only be a trademark issue when they're likely to be confused. That's not remotely likely here.

UK will likely lose, but what will it change though? The little guy has to spend time and money defending themselves and go through the stress that comes along with it. UK probably will write the costs off and sue someone else.

This is why the American rule is really dumb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...

Re: Comedian changes name to Hugo Boss to challenge trademark law

#47

Post by vidarh »

tomhoward wrote: post #45
vidarh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a much less aggressive option: "Hey, we think your use of is a bit too close for comfort. We recognize it's not actually problem but it's in both our interest to avoid trademark dilution issues; let's discuss some minor changes and nail down an agreement". Then both sides can point to the agreement if someone else tries to use that usage as a defense. The real issue is not that they're communicating with peo…

I don’t know anything about the specific cases. But how does any of us know there’s a way the could handle this in a less hostile way and still be safe before the courts? Are there examples of other companies doing it substantially better?

There is no requirement to be hostile. They can always go for the hostile option if the friendlier approach doesn't work.

All they need is to be able to demonstrate that they take action to protect their mark. If they do so by agreeing license terms that covers reasonable uses that is sufficient.

As for examples: Pretty much any company you don't see in the media harassing companies with similar names. Hugo Boss are being exceptionally aggressive here.

Re: Comedian changes name to Hugo Boss to challenge trademark law

#48

Post by buran77 »

Y-bar wrote: post #25
buran77 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite a gross generalization. Do you often get judged for the sins of your predecessors? And if you buy anything from Ford, Mercedes, Porsche, Siemens, IBM, Kodak, Volkswagen, Bayer, Allianz, Coca Cola (yes, that Coca Cola), Chase, Standard Oil (Exxon, BP, Chevron) and many, many others what does that say about your principles?

One isn’t allowed to criticise one wrongdoing without also making sure to expressively criticise every other similar wrongdoing? Is that what we have come to?

I didn't ask them to criticize, just if they feel the same about every similar brand. I guess it all depends on how you define hypocrisy.
Post reply on HN