AC Question

[iron81]

Usually, fraud implies a business relationship. In the case of trademark infringment, the infringers customers would be able to sue for fraud, but the company that owned the trademark would not because the infringer and the infringee haven't signed anything.

I'm not aware of any logical recourse for a company to enforce its trademark other than coersive trademark law or a company paying protection to stop the infringers. Would customers looking out for a company's trademark be enough?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I am genuinely curious.

How would Trademark/Tradenames be handled? Just for simplicity sake, could I create and brand a new gadget that plays digital music and call it an "Apple IPod" (not being affiliated with the existing Apple IPod product at all, though that product exists in the market.) What would the remedies be for such a move in the market?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think at least part of the solution would come from civil actions. If you market your "ipod" in such a way that makes me think its associated with apple when its not that would (could) be considered fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fraud requires intent. Many infringements aren't an attempt to confuse the customers, or profit from an existing brand.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I am genuinely curious.

How would Trademark/Tradenames be handled? Just for simplicity sake, could I create and brand a new gadget that plays digital music and call it an "Apple IPod" (not being affiliated with the existing Apple IPod product at all, though that product exists in the market.) What would the remedies be for such a move in the market?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think at least part of the solution would come from civil actions. If you market your "ipod" in such a way that makes me think its associated with apple when its not that would (could) be considered fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fraud requires intent. Many infringements aren't an attempt to confuse the customers, or profit from an existing brand.

[/ QUOTE ]

So whats the problem here then? If i make a new line of couches and call them Ipodes is anyone going to give much of a crap? Should they?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are an unreasonable person who will only use an arbiter who agrees with you then
1. No one will sell you parts to build your fake ipods
2. No one will work for you because you have no reason to pay them (after all you wil just take the decision to an arbiter that favors you right?)
3. No one will loan you money for your business (for the same reason as above, why would you repay the loan?)
4. No one will let you in their store to sell you food so you'll starve todeath.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the way smart pirates operate is to follow a code among themselves to keep their mutually profitable organization functioning while stealing at will from those not in the club, then dividing the spoils.

[Poofler]

Apple will. And that's probably not the best example of lack of intent.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Apple will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, let me ask it this way, what is the overall negative effect of me making couches and naming them Ipodes (or any example where there is no fraud or attempts to deceive the customer?).

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let me ask it this way, what is the overall negative effect of me making couches and naming them Ipodes (or any example where there is no fraud or attempts to deceive the customer?).

[/ QUOTE ]

It diminishes brand equity.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apple will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, let me ask it this way, what is the overall negative effect of me making couches and naming them Ipodes (or any example where there is no fraud or attempts to deceive the customer?).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Ipodes are clearly an example of intent. With a less obvious example, I'll probably end up agreeing with you mostly. I don't agree with punishing someone for coming up with something similar, independently. There are potential utility arguments for granting exclusive rights, where I'm a little torn, but that will derail the thread into a long boring legal discussion.

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you call fraud, I consider doing business. Too bad there's no codified laws to settle this...

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad assumption

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I can just find an arbitrator who feels the way I do about the issue and demand we use him. I don't have to associate with the arbitrator you wish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you get tired of being the same idiot troll day in, day out?

If you are an unreasonable person who will only use an arbiter who agrees with you then
1. No one will sell you parts to build your fake ipods
2. No one will work for you because you have no reason to pay them (after all you wil just take the decision to an arbiter that favors you right?)
3. No one will loan you money for your business (for the same reason as above, why would you repay the loan?)
4. No one will let you in their store to sell you food so you'll starve todeath.

So uhh, yeah, if you can make your ipods out of berries and sticks and [censored] you find in the woods then your fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you should be suspended for calling someone an idiot and a troll.

Second, listen to yourself. You're seriously arguing that there's no money to be made by selling knockoff products.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


First of all, you should be suspended for calling someone an idiot and a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have agreed to abide by the arbitrators decision (iron).

[ QUOTE ]


Second, listen to yourself. You're seriously arguing that there's no money to be made by selling knockoff products.

[/ QUOTE ]

No i am not arguing that, i am arguing that if a person refuses to use a fair arbitrator then they will not be able to run a business. Knock off artists still have to buy the materials to make their knock offs (and still have disagreements with the time, place and quantities of shipments with suppliers), they still need capital to start and run their business, they still need employees.