On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Mike Godwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anthony writes: > > > The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a > > property right. > > This isn't an accurate statement about trademark law. It's true that > trademark law creates certain rights, but to understand trademark law > as an attempt to create a *property* right is an analytical mistake. > > > --Mike > Hopefully you can take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution and fix it, specifically this paragraph: "Trademark law is generally focused on the need for consumer protection<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection>. Consequently, trademark law traditionally concerned itself with situations where an unauthorized party sold goods that are directly competitive with or at least related to those sold by the trademark owner. However, in many jurisdictions the concept of dilution has developed recently to protect trademarks as a property right, securing the investment the trademark owner has made in establishing and promoting a strong mark. The concept of dilution is much newer than the rest of trademark law; only in the mid-1990s did the United States <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States> enact a law against trademark dilution, although various states had begun adopting such laws shortly after World War II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II>, and the idea was floated in academic writing as early as the late 1920s." However, I've done a bit of research on this, and I haven't found anything to contradict it, so make sure you cite your sources. Please note that I wasn't talking here about "trademark law", I was talking specifically about "trademark dilution law". These types of laws both share the term "trademark", but they are actually not all that similar otherwise. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
