Hacker News Reader

Being able to recognize a brand is necessary for the market to function. It is how you know what you are buying, and what you base trust on. At the same time, the cost of coming up with a different name for your competing product is trivial.

So while, yes "the same applies", the cost/benefit ratio of the two situations is totally different.

Well, true... up to a point. But the motivations behind patent law are so different from those behind trademark law that I'm not sure it's a relevant comparison.

And one of the tests in trademark law is if a reasonable person would be confused between the original and the imposter. So you only have to have 'reasonable' knowledge of other brands in your industry.

I think the actual test is if the intended audience would get confused between the original and the imposter (see the H. R. Pufnstuf v. McDonald's case, although that's copyright, not trademark).

> that's copyright, not trademark

So...

In that case, it's easy to change a name, then continue selling your product. Not if (some part) of your product is patented.