...consider that organizations can lose their trademarks if they don't actively defend them against even vague and doubtful potential infringements. If they let this case slip without issuing a token C&D, it could be cited later by an actual competitor as grounds for permitting their own infringement.
That's not to say that the law isn't stupid, but the proper target for complaints about the stupidity of the law is your local congresscritter, not the lawyers who are just dealing with the laws as they are
/////.not the lawyers who are just dealing with the laws as they are.
Pardon me, but this is clearly parody. The lawyers ALREADY HAVE LAWS TO TELL THEM TO RESPECT PARODY. They chose to ignore them.
Not only is this a parody, its not even a real product, and the phrase is not the same phrase as "the other white meat."
Playing up the "We're just following the law, ma'am and are powerless to think for ourselves" card is a unconvincing excuse. that empowers organizations like SCO.
Except that " the other white meat(tm)" is a trademarked phrase not a copyrighted phrase so I don't think that parody is a defense, additionally Trademarks are protect it or lose it, so the lawyers really had no choice no matter how ridiculous the infringement was.
What exactly is confusing the potential consumer in this case? How can he be tricked into buying a fictional product? Its ridiculous to keep defending this action.
Before having a knee-jerk anti-lawyer moment... (Score:5, Informative)
...consider that organizations can lose their trademarks if they don't actively defend them against even vague and doubtful potential infringements. If they let this case slip without issuing a token C&D, it could be cited later by an actual competitor as grounds for permitting their own infringement.
That's not to say that the law isn't stupid, but the proper target for complaints about the stupidity of the law is your local congresscritter, not the lawyers who are just dealing with the laws as they are
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
/////.not the lawyers who are just dealing with the laws as they are.
Pardon me, but this is clearly parody. The lawyers ALREADY HAVE LAWS TO TELL THEM TO RESPECT PARODY. They chose to ignore them.
Not only is this a parody, its not even a real product, and the phrase is not the same phrase as "the other white meat."
Playing up the "We're just following the law, ma'am and are powerless to think for ourselves" card is a unconvincing excuse. that empowers organizations like SCO.
Lastly, pork is far from the 'oth
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that " the other white meat(tm)" is a trademarked phrase not a copyrighted phrase so I don't think that parody is a defense, additionally Trademarks are protect it or lose it, so the lawyers really had no choice no matter how ridiculous the infringement was.
Re:Before having a knee-jerk anti-lawyer moment... (Score:2)
What exactly is confusing the potential consumer in this case? How can he be tricked into buying a fictional product? Its ridiculous to keep defending this action.