This reminds me a case on Argentina, where Louis Vuitton or other high fashion brand was suing an street vendor for selling falsified purses. The judge dismissed the case, arguing that trademarks are not there to protect the companies, but to protect consumers, and that no one would be as stupid to think that a LV purse bought on the streets for 20 pesos is an original one.
That would be copyright infringement. Trademarks would be irrelevant in a case like that. Trademarks only apply in situations where someone could reasonably confuse a product for being officially something else.
For a trademark, you should be asking something like “Why should I care if my Tylenol was actually made by the big pharma company that usually makes Tylenol or by some dude in his garage who’s stolen their logo and packaging?”
Although Mickey Mouse entered the public domain in 2024, the character, like all major Disney characters, remains trademarked. The trademark lasts in perpetuity, as long as it continues to be used commercially by its owner. So, whether or not a particular Disney cartoon goes into the public domain, the characters themselves may not be used as trademarks without authorization.
The latter could constitute fraud, but instead let’s say instead of a dude in his garage it was a company that made generics?
Generic drugs can’t claim to be the name brand equivalent. Again, trademarks are just consumer protection. They prevent a product or entity from impersonating another. They are extremely narrow in scope and can only be enforced in cases where a reasonable person might get confused.
As for the Mickey Mouse situation, I think now you could absolutely sell a shirt with Steamboat Willie on it, but you can’t put the Walt Disney company logo on the shirt, since that would be misleading. The current trademark of Mickey Mouse I think just means that Disney can continue using a stylized version of him as an alternative logo to the Walt Disney signature logo or the castle logo.
Exactly. If you have Streamboat Willie murdering some other character or something, that’s totally fine because the average consumer won’t think it came from Disney.
Here’s my opinion on IP law:
trademark - should continue existing as it is today, though perhaps relax the “must protect trademark” rule to limit pointless lawsuits
patents - limit duration to 5-7 years, perhaps with a one-time renewal if you need more time to hit the market; patents must be owned by individuals, not companies and cannot be sold; patent lawsuits would have stiff penalties if the suit is deemed frivolous
copyright - revert to original duration: 14 years, renewable once
I’m totally fine with trademark continuing as it is today.
Because if it’s not, it could be made of fiberglass. There were and maybe still are bootleg plushies sold at carnivals made of fiberglass and we’re causing kids mouths to bleed when they chewed on them. You could also get bootleg makeup kits with toxic chemicals and be SOL when you want to use someone.
Trademarks aren’t IP trolling. They are a form of consumer protection.
This reminds me a case on Argentina, where Louis Vuitton or other high fashion brand was suing an street vendor for selling falsified purses. The judge dismissed the case, arguing that trademarks are not there to protect the companies, but to protect consumers, and that no one would be as stupid to think that a LV purse bought on the streets for 20 pesos is an original one.
Why should I care if a Mickey Mouse T-shirt is Disney-approved?
That would be copyright infringement. Trademarks would be irrelevant in a case like that. Trademarks only apply in situations where someone could reasonably confuse a product for being officially something else.
For a trademark, you should be asking something like “Why should I care if my Tylenol was actually made by the big pharma company that usually makes Tylenol or by some dude in his garage who’s stolen their logo and packaging?”
wp:Mickey Mouse
The latter could constitute fraud, but instead let’s say instead of a dude in his garage it was a company that made generics?
Generic drugs can’t claim to be the name brand equivalent. Again, trademarks are just consumer protection. They prevent a product or entity from impersonating another. They are extremely narrow in scope and can only be enforced in cases where a reasonable person might get confused.
As for the Mickey Mouse situation, I think now you could absolutely sell a shirt with Steamboat Willie on it, but you can’t put the Walt Disney company logo on the shirt, since that would be misleading. The current trademark of Mickey Mouse I think just means that Disney can continue using a stylized version of him as an alternative logo to the Walt Disney signature logo or the castle logo.
Exactly. If you have Streamboat Willie murdering some other character or something, that’s totally fine because the average consumer won’t think it came from Disney.
Here’s my opinion on IP law:
I’m totally fine with trademark continuing as it is today.
What if the company openly said they weren’t selling you actually Disney-approved stuff, but your friends don’t have to know that?
Because if it’s not, it could be made of fiberglass. There were and maybe still are bootleg plushies sold at carnivals made of fiberglass and we’re causing kids mouths to bleed when they chewed on them. You could also get bootleg makeup kits with toxic chemicals and be SOL when you want to use someone.