[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal
At 12:48 30-07-99 -0400, Rita M. Odin wrote:
>Please try to remember that the legitimate TM owners are the "innocent"
>party here. Why are they required to go above and beyond the call of duty
>to proactively prevent infringement of their rights?
Let's try to keep in focus the rights of consumers *not to be* mislead by a
similar name, trade dress, etc.
Jane likes to use "Sweet and Low" sweetener in her coffee and ice tea. It
is packaged in a pink package with pale blue printing on it. Some people
think it could be carcinogenic. She thinks otherwise.
However, of late, we've discovered that many restaurants have what *looks
like* Sweet and Low, same hue of pink paper, same hue of pale blue
ink. But they are *not* Sweet and Low. We have discovered at least three
of these imitation products.
Should she not be protected from the perpetrators of the confusion? Should
she be forced to determine whether these imitators' products are
The consumer has the right to this protection. Unfortunately, U.S. law
forces the legitimate Trademark holder to police the market place *to
protect the consumer* at the expense of the Trademark holder.
"One test is worth three expert opinions!"
Ulric B. Bray