Comment by Dylan16807
2 days ago
Trademarks serve the same purpose for free goods and services as they do for paid ones. It's just that giving things away for free is rare.
If setting your usage price to $0 means no trademark, that's a pretty big attack on non-commercial services. Alternatively if it's more about tracking, that's also quite bad in a different way.
Yes, but ultimately trademarks are a consumer protection, and what matters in granting a trademark is protecting consumers from harm.
I don't know much about this OSS project... but if there's a case that they need this trademark to protect consumers from harm, then that's your winning argument.
> If setting your usage price to $0 means no trademark, that's a pretty big attack on non-commercial services.
If you really are not doing commerce, trademarks are irrelevant. You can't get one, and you don't need one.
> Yes, but ultimately trademarks are a consumer protection, and what matters in granting a trademark is protecting consumers from harm.
Yes, protecting consumers. And people are equally consumers of something whether they pay $1 or $0.
> but if there's a case that they need this trademark to protect consumers from harm, then that's your winning argument.
Other than the normal argument for trademark and the evidence of use they had? If you have to show a specific argument for harm, that's way too high of a bar.
> If you really are not doing commerce, trademarks are irrelevant. You can't get one, and you don't need one.
Define "commerce" here.
If we count competing in the market but your product happens to be $0 as commerce, then sure I can agree but this project passes the test.
If a price of $0 disqualifies you from "commerce" then no way, trademarks are not irrelevant and you do still need one. Consumers need to be able to find your product and avoid imitators.
No, you absolutely don't have to price a product in order to be engaging in commerce. But you do have to engage in exchanging goods and services with somebody else. And if you're not, then you don't qualify for a trademark because trademarks are marks that you get to use when you do trade.
I am not asking for the evidence of what that commerce is. I personally do not care nor do I make the judgment of what qualifies.
But, if you want a trademark, you need to show the trademark office what trade you are going to do with the mark you want them to grant you exclusive use of.
And if you're not going to do any trade, then you don't need to worry about it. Because you cannot infringe on a trademark without doing trade.
4 replies →
Following this logic, does this mean if I have a project name like ABC, and some company decided to incorporate in this name plus registering the trademark, I have to give up the name when they decide to come after me? Like I have a github.com/ABC, a npmjs.com/org/ABC. All just gone, because trademarks right gives them the right, and I have nothing that protects me?
If that is the case, ok. It's just that I was naive enough to believe I could protect my little open-source project from this using a trademark. The EUPIO somewhat confirmed in their writing that you don't need commercial activities, but you need "genuine use", which is, again, hard to prove if you don't collect user data.
"ABC" is already a trademark. There's probably dozens if not hundreds of trademarks for "ABC".
Trademarks are only the right to use a name commercially for a particular good or service.
Anything outside of that is fair game.
If I consume a good or service then I’m a consumer, whether I had to pay for that good/service or not. As a consumer, it is in my interest that I can look up the name of the good or service and not have confusion as to which good/service I’m obtaining.
Yep. And if someone uses OPs mark on or in connection with goods and/or services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services, then they have the right to sue them.
I don't think that's happened though.
2 replies →