You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] 3833624? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

They should be 1% original at least.


[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm completely against IP, including trademarks, but assuming they're going to exist then unoriginal trademarks would have to be allowed purely on the basis that most businesses have names made up of existing english language words and phrases.

The point of a trademark isn't that you created it, it's to assign you a unique identifier so customers can tell you apart from the competition. Kinda like the way you can register URLs without inventing the name.


[–] 3834517? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The polar opposite of this problem is the problem of "generic trademarks". In this problem, companies can be too successful at having the product associated with the name, and so it is no longer a unique identifier.

In this case, the name is already generic. It is already the non-branded name for the product, and Sony may be trying to "de-genericize" it by claiming the name for itself.

It would be exactly the same as if tesla tried to trademark "car", or if Google tried to trademark "Search engine", or if comcast tried to trademark "Internet". It isn't a unique identifier, they'd be trying to steal the common public name for that thing and retroactively own something they didn't create.