Comment by stymaar
5 hours ago
> The core reason to enforce trademarks is not to fluff the corporation that holds it but to let the public be confident in the name.
That's something we hear often but it's not grounded in an legal reality: trademarks are purely a form of intellectual property that a person (physical or moral) can hold and it doesn't come with any attached liability: you can't hold a company accountable for violating the trust built around its brand name in past year, and the owner is free to sell the brand name to another company or change their products in a way that mislead the consumer about its quality.
In fact, should a trademark come with a promise about the quality of the product, Twitter would have lost it's trademark as soon as Elon transformed it into a disinformation machine (by breaking how the blue tick works and boosting paying account's content).
No, there is an amount of legal reality built into it. With copyright and patents, once you obtain the intellectual property, you keep it for the rest of the term no matter what you do. But with trademarks, your actions (or inaction) can cause you to lose the trademark.
The legal purpose of the trademark is to protect identifying marks for the purposes of conducting business (trade)--literally its name. The subsidiary public interest of attaching trust to that mark isn't directly protected, but failing to police the use of trademark is sufficient grounds to lose the trademark, which is why companies tend to be overly aggressive in suing people for violating the trademark.
> Failing to police the use of trademark is sufficient grounds to lose the trademark, which is why companies tend to be overly aggressive in suing people for violating the trademark.
Not quite. There is no litigation requirement to renew a trademark registration. Trademarks are in fact the only type of intellectual property that can be preserved in perpetuity.
Litigation is an attempt to prevent genericide, and might fail at that.
Trademarks can be preserved even in the absence of litigation. Cancellation cases in US law typically require evidence of abandonment and lack of evidence for intended re-uptake. Litigation is not necessary to refute abandonment.
Nothing you've written above contradicts my argument. which is that there's no liability attached to a trademark as opposed to what something made to protect the consumer would require.
is-ought distinction, but specifically:
The heksher marks and logos offered by kosher-certification organizations are protected by trademark; using the trademark under license specifically assures the customer that the organization's standards have been followed precisely, and using the trademark without license defeats the purpose.
Similarly, the American Halal Foundation, the USDA Organic seal, the UL logo and many other programs use the mechanism of trademark to guarantee that the product or service meets their standards.
That's the licensing agreement between the owner and the trademarks, and their customers for the use of the trademark.
But the American Halal Foundation could revise their definition of what counts as Halal, and then license the brand to a company that doesn't meet the current criteria, without asking for permission from anyone.
It's in your wording already: “the customer that the organization's standards have been followed precisely” (emphasis mine), nothing prevents the organization from changing their standards (well, maybe the licensing agreement with their customer brands does, but that's purely a contract thing and has nothing to to with the trademark per se).
Trademark is the mechanism of enforcement for this usage, just as copyright is the mechanism of enforcement for the GPL.
You can come up with other mechanisms that would work, but this is the one that we have in existence now.