Has there been any previous case law on whether or not this is allowed?
Has there been any previous case law on whether or not this is allowed?
Could an argument be made that since Disney has never defended this, then they have no right to complain now? (At least trademark is supposed to work that way - you lose it if you don’t actively enforce it).
That’s an oft repeated myth, but it’s not quite true.
From an article by the EFF:
> The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark—such as abandonment and genericide—are quite limited. Genericide […] is very rare […]. 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.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
Not tattoos, but games look at a similar situation with videos and streaming, most companies welcome the free advertising or encourage it heavily. But there are gaming companies famous for exercising a strong grip on content creation, most prominently japanese companies likes ATLUS [1].
It took less than a minute for one of the security people (dressed in an old-timey police uniform, of course) to come over and tell him to put his shirt back on, in a tone and cadence which made it sound like this wasn’t the first time the two of them had had this interaction.
Anyway what I’m saying is, as far as I know he wasn’t bound and gagged and hauled off before a Disney magistrate.