|
I have no love for Microsoft (see avatar) but it bugs me that people don't understand what this kind of case is about.
The law requires that trademark holders show "due diligence" in preserving their trademarks, otherwise they are interpreted as acquiescing in the dilution of same.
This means they don't really care whether Mike Rowe prevails or not. They don't really think he's any threat to their global empire. It's just that they HAVE to go after infringement cases when they appear, however trivial, otherwise their failure to do so can be cited against them in more significant ones.
To fail to show "due diligence" in protecting your trademark is to start sliding down the slippery slope to that trademark becoming generic--like kleenex or scotch tape (no capital letters required).
There are any number of instances in which Microsoft can be rightly accused of acting like the monopolistic bully that it is. But in this case, the lawyers are simply doing what the law requires 'em to do. I don't think it even matters that much whether they prevail in the case. They have to BRING the suit; that's what the issue is.
Lots of other instances of this--not just Microsloth. A few years ago TIme-Warner sued a Chicago-area high school newspaper. High school named after renowned local pol, Mayor Daley. Newsletter wittily monikered "The Daley Planet." T-W owns Superman. Has to sue, once they know about the infringement. If they don't know, no problem. But once it can be shown that they do, they have no choice.
Welcome to the law of unintended consequences.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(505 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
