| |
In lugnet.market.brickshops, Calum Tsang writes:
> In lugnet.market.brickshops, Tim Courtney writes:
> > I don't think they have any legal grounds, but IANAL.
>
> Actually, they have plenty of legal ground. Again, similarly, I am not a
> lawyer. (And also a Canadian!) But I have been to lectures about
> intellectual property, and it is my understanding that trademark
> infringement is based on similar service or product. Meaning, if I am
> McDonalds (the burger joint) and some guy opens a company called MacDonalds
> Burgers, then I have reason to take legal action. If someone opens
> MacDonalds Car Repair, well, no, because there's no reasonable chance that
> someone would get an auto garage and a burger joint mixed up. Check it out:
>
> http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html
>
> "In a nutshell, a plaintiff in a trademark case has the burden of proving
> that the defendant's use of a mark has created a likelihood-of-confusion
> about the origin of the defendant's goods or services."
>
> If you read a bit further:
>
> "the similarity in the overall impression created by the two marks
> (including the marks' look, phonetic similarities, and underlying meanings);
> the similarities of the goods and services involved (including an
> examination of the marketing channels for the goods);
> the strength of the plaintiff's mark; "
>
> I can easily see how Brickbay and EBay (both in online auctions, both
> allowing sellers to auction used toys etc) can be mixed up, at least for a
> judge to rule on. I won't comment on whether or not I think it's a valid
> claim, because there's just too much stupidity going on the IP field these days.
>
>
>
>
> > This is silly. eBay is big enough they don't have to whine like this.
> > Their lawyers need something better to do.
>
> Actually, they don't. In a market where almost anyone with a 486, and a
> network connection can duplicate EBay's basic services, it's very important
> that the IP elements EBay does own, including it's name, DNS domain, and
> business processes, be defended at any cost. Otherwise, there's very little
> to differentiate EBay from say, "cBay" or anything else.
>
> At that, this is the same as Larry defending his Guild of Bricksmiths
> (tm-just to make his day). If one believes Larry is within his rights to
> defend his trademark and protect it, then you have to support EBay protect
> its trademarks and IP. It doesn't really matter if EBay is a big evil
> company, and Larry is a small but outspoken, ardent supporter of Lego and
> the Lego "community". If I was CEO of EBay (sorry Meg) I'd sue Brickbay to
> the stone age*, my investors would demand it.
>
> *-I of course don't wish to sue Brickbay to the stone age, I think they
> provide a very valuable service. But speaking hypothetically...
>
> Calum
I don't know if this sheds any more light on the situation, but here is my
understanding of large companies defending their trademark:
I was reading an article in Florida one day that was telling of "Disney"
sueing a day care center for using some of their pics and names without
their permission. I thought this was terrible and decided that "Disney"
must be a monster for doing such a thing, but a friend explained the
situation to me. It seems that for any company to protect its' self from
people stealing their trademark, they must actively pursue all violators no
matter what the situation is. If they don't, then they won't stand a chance
in court when they have someone who is flagrantly violating their trademark.
That's why MacDonalds files against some pub in Scotland and Disney sues a
beauty parlor with the name "Mickeys"! They can't take the liberty of
picking who they go after, they "have" to go after all that might qualify.
They may not really care if "so and so" uses a part of their name, but they
can't afford to ignore it. It's "all or nothing" in order to show the court
that they mean business. It's not about who "really" is in violation or not!
I'm not sure this helps, but that is what I understand of the situation.
Ebay probably doesn't give a "hoot" about brickbay, but if they hope to win
against the copycat site that does steal their stuff, then they have to act
this way. Unfortunately, the small fry end up suffering or spending a small
fortune to prove they are in the right! This is sad! But it doesn't
necessarily mean that Ebay is "evil" or "Mean"!
All large corporations have their plus sides and their negative sides. It's
just part of what being a corporation is all about. You can't always make
the easy or likable decisions and hope to survive. I think Brickbay should
probably just change it's name and not worry about it. Some fights are just
not worth pursuing! That's my two cents worth...
Tom
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
| (...) I'm no lawyer either, but I know DC Comics took legal action against a elementary football team called the "Superman." They also used the Superman logo on their helmets. Now, I'm sure DC could've careed less... heck, they probably liked it. (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
| (...) Actually, they have plenty of legal ground. Again, similarly, I am not a lawyer. (And also a Canadian!) But I have been to lectures about intellectual property, and it is my understanding that trademark infringement is based on similar service (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
