Techdirt Podcast Episode 47: Trademarks: Intellectual Property Or Consumer Protection?

from the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others dept

Tue, Oct 20th 2015 12:44pm — Leigh Beadon

Trademark law often gets lumped in with patents and copyright under the "intellectual property" banner, but in fact it's a different kind of law with an entirely different heritage. That said, it's not without its dangers, so this week we're discussing the intent and extent of trademark law and its impacts both positive and negative.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

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: podcast, trademark

6 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael, 20 Oct 2015 @ 1:00pm

It's neither.

It is a speech suppression tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Black Art (profile), 20 Oct 2015 @ 2:36pm

Trademarks
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OGquaker (profile), 20 Oct 2015 @ 2:37pm

Wrong, Wrong, Wronnnnng
I have a 60 pound 'Robot Secretary', branded FORD from 1960. See telephone answering machine, circa 1982, Ford Industries, Inc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC8ynendbv0

BUT ALL Trademarks are DEFINED by the narrow product field you persist in occupying. Stop filling that space, OR attempt to move into another field, YOU MUST TRY TO GET NEW TRADEMARK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frustrated Listener, 21 Oct 2015 @ 11:02am

A painful listen
This is close to unlistenable. Before the conversation begins you have to weather through over a minute of unrelated ads, the intro and discussion parameters and goals are muddled, the examples and arguments are sophomoric, etc. but the biggest issue is that the participants are constantly talking over each other. It's painful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 21 Oct 2015 @ 1:53pm

Monster Cable
I almost got the impression from these discussions that when it came to Monster cable suing everyone else over the use of the word Monster that Hirsch would actually support that because we don't want possible confusion that somebody might somewhere be confused for a few minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@b, 29 Dec 2015 @ 8:32pm

Bait and Switch
This e-trademark debate trickery turns on when you think the case's marketing Bait and Switch is dishonest.

Some folks will say all marketing is bs (even a moron in a hurry knows "buyer beware") and others will argue that a b&s might turn out to be permissible when it's, for eg, humorous baiting then softly brand switching. "Yoogle" yogurt is that transparent that it mightn't be dishonest. Not many folks right now would want Google to successfully assert brand damage from that unknown froyo shop down the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]