> If Postman decides NOT to pursue it
Choosing not to pursue it can put the trademark at risk.
So even if Postman would otherwise shrug, it may need to pursue it to protect its right to the mark.
Choosing not to pursue it can put the trademark at risk.
So even if Postman would otherwise shrug, it may need to pursue it to protect its right to the mark.
EFF is debunked this myth many many many times I wish people would stop spreading it, as it just an excuse for Over Aggressive enforcement that companies that DESIRE to do it use to divert the bad PR, "We had no choice" sounds alot better than "We want to crush any competition"
> Second, Canonical is not “required” to enforce its mark in every instance or risk losing it. The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark—such as abandonment and genericide—are quite limited. […] Courts also set a very high bar to show abandonment (usually years of total non-use). Importantly, failure to enforce a mark against every potential infringer does not show abandonment.
That paragraph cites the court decision https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=950778076210138...:
> The evidence in this case shows that Metalock Corp. has and is continuing to take reasonable steps to maintain its rights in the mark, to use that mark, to license its use, to advertise it and to prosecute infringers. The owner of a mark is not required to constantly monitor every nook and cranny of the entire nation and to fire both barrels of his shotgun instantly upon spotting a possible infringer. Lawyers and lawsuits come high and a financial decision must be made in every case as to whether the gain of prosecution is worth the candle. These defendants have not proved that because of the lack of efforts by plaintiffs in "policing" use of the mark, that METALOCK has become so diluted by widespread use by others that it has lost its distinctiveness.
My interpretation is that companies do indeed have to prosecute a high enough fraction of infringements to protect their trademark, but they don’t necessarily have to prosecute a given infringement. So, for example, Postman could keep their trademark if they left “Postwoman” alone, as long as they later sued “Post Man” for infringement.
I seriously cannot imagine the word "postman" falling into genericide on this basis.
Can you point to a case even vaguely close to this fact pattern?
Per this posting from a law firm [1], as your question is stated with the inclusion of "might" the answer is yes. Apparently it can go one of three ways: abandoning, not impacting/abandoning, or diminishing. Two of these results are bad for the trademark holder.
I'd assume a C&D letter would be sufficient to get a proper result or at least should be the first move in these matters, but I'm not a lawyer nor play one on TV or online.
[1] https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-lose-trademark-rights-dont-su...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...
You don't necessarily need to sue competitors for being misleading, but you do generally have to show you are trying to defend your trademarks and a lawsuit is a nice expensive papertrail.
Can you specify a single one that you think is similar?
https://www.google.com/search?q=failure%20to%20protect%20tra...
Can you point to a mark that you think was genercized in a similar fashion to what you project happening if Postman does not pursue legal action against Postwoman?
So the trademark was protected it would appear. Even though the infringing company makes a good case (laches) for selling said products without regard from the fraternities/sororities for decades (in fact, they were selling to these organizations, so they were generally aware of the company's existence and practices).
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
>>>Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression.