WIPO Wants Service Providers To Act As Trademark Spies And Police
from the third-party-liability dept
What is it with intellectual property holders? The government already grants them an unfair, innovation-limiting monopoly that extends way beyond reason... and then they still expect others to go to ridiculous levels to prop up their own business models. The latest is that trademark holders are pushing for new third party liability rules in treaties via WIPO. Specifically, the apparent proposal would mean that third party service providers wouldn't just need to take down things on request, but would also have to proactively monitor and hand identifying info over to trademark holders without a court order. The sense of entitlement here is astounding.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: secondary liability, trademark, wipo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah,...No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah,...No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neat!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah those people who abuse trademarks will stop at nothing. For once Mike, we agree.
Say, where is the privacy policy page for this site again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Enter at your own risk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.insightcommunity.com/privacy.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am curious as to your side of the argument as to why other companies should have to pay to police IP that isn't theirs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Becoming confused
We might as well have one protection law regarding all three intents.
We should call this new law a moral law and have it as follows:
If you can feel it, touch it, see it, smell it, or hear it, you can apply to protect it. This protection lasts for as long as you have it in your possession.
However, if someone else is allowed those senses, your protections lasts as far as you can hold on to your protection. You can not take away any one else's senses nor protections. You can't confuse your own work with those of someone else.
I think it'd be a lot simpler this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Becoming confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I give up...
You know what, they're right, we'll be so much better off with absolute enforcement. All those who want it can have it...and then we'll never have to worry about them again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not half as astounding as the sense of entitlement that td fanbois have where they expect to get everything for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WIPO and Trademarks
This treaty deals with attempting to use the name of a State in a TM to confuse and deceive the consumer about the origin of the product, and is EXCELLENT!
Someone owes WIPO an apology - but I won't hold my breath waiting for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]