So - not to rush to Thru's defense - but this is not a great victory.
When they found out Dropbox was infringing (let's assume they really used the trademark, it was useful, etc), then they should have immediately sent a cease and desist.
If they send that, then Dropbox can file a lawsuit for declaratory judgment in the venue of their choosing. So - for even enforcing your trademark, deep pockets win over legitimate claims (sometimes).
If Thru could not afford a lawsuit (or substitute your own struggling company name here), then they can't risk a cease and desist.
So what would you do? Maybe wait for a more advantageous time to file a cease and desist.
At any rate - I don't consider this clear-cut malfeasance on the part of Thru, rather, it's part of the basic playbook of IP laws that support moneyed interests, and virtually no-one else.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Andrew.
Is Thru so bad?
When they found out Dropbox was infringing (let's assume they really used the trademark, it was useful, etc), then they should have immediately sent a cease and desist.
If they send that, then Dropbox can file a lawsuit for declaratory judgment in the venue of their choosing. So - for even enforcing your trademark, deep pockets win over legitimate claims (sometimes).
If Thru could not afford a lawsuit (or substitute your own struggling company name here), then they can't risk a cease and desist.
So what would you do? Maybe wait for a more advantageous time to file a cease and desist.
At any rate - I don't consider this clear-cut malfeasance on the part of Thru, rather, it's part of the basic playbook of IP laws that support moneyed interests, and virtually no-one else.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Andrew.
Submit a story now.