tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post660443923222033081..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Why it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive explanation of trademarks Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89077667801924070382016-02-25T18:56:27.966+00:002016-02-25T18:56:27.966+00:00Really like "property right" v "dec...Really like "property right" v "deception right". The former is so 1800 and something and the latter is so 2000 and something. Let's say 1900 and something saw the shift from (fogive me) Victorian mill-owners here in the UK wanting to make sure THEIR goods were not confused with goods of other Victorian mill-owners to (forgive me again) an "I thought of it first so it's mine" mentality (where the battleground is either (here in the UK - unregistered) copyright or (here in the UK - more publically) the wonderful world of trade mark registration. Just wait 'til Joe Public gets the hang of design rights !Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17547963789032954274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76984034261769891112016-02-15T09:34:21.816+00:002016-02-15T09:34:21.816+00:00Neil
My experience in teaching the economics of t...Neil<br /><br />My experience in teaching the economics of trade marks is to ask "why a trade mark system?", to which there are many answers, but the by far most important one is "to reduce search costs". That would be your first question. Your second question (if the first is answered in the sense that we have an economic basis for the existence of a trade marks system) is then "why a state sponsored system?"; the answer to that question might be more tricky since non state sponsored trade mark systems do exist, and work quite well. The third question is "how do we ensure the system works", to which the most efficient answer - if you believe that efficiency equates with the economisation of state resources - is by allocating rights to private enterprise and leaving it to them to pursue trespassers. This last answer is why we have a private enforcement system. People complain about their "rights" being infringed but they forget that they are only given them to save the state from enforcing the operation of a system it created.<br /><br />To that extent I disagree with your questions but I agree with your conclusion ("... so challenging to talk about trademarks."). I feel a symposium coming on. "The IPKat symposium on the economic function of trade marks: does our current system create the right economic advantages?" anybody up for it? Actually, while we are at it could we also have a symposium or perhaps a short debate on whether it is "trade marks" or "trademarks" (Google search seems to think it is the latter).<br /><br />AshleyAshley Roughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11867564640201688641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24840802619506273442016-02-12T16:24:04.918+00:002016-02-12T16:24:04.918+00:00Wilkof provides here a succinct overview of the st...<br />Wilkof provides here a succinct overview of the still unsuccessful quest for a comprehensive theory of trademarks. I wonder whether this problem has parallels in the world of science. A friend of mine from planet Physics has referred me to the following on Wikipedia: <br /><br />"Wave–particle duality is the fact that every elementary particle or quantic entity exhibits the properties of not only particles, but also waves. It addresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. As Einstein wrote: "It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do".<br /><br />Perhaps we on planet Law have something to learn from planet Science.... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78795528211368876782016-02-12T13:54:57.021+00:002016-02-12T13:54:57.021+00:00Mr. Wilkof,
One can always find a way of "tr...Mr. Wilkof,<br /><br />One can always find a way of "trying too hard" and confusing oneself. That does not make the subject itself intractable. It just means that you have confused yourself.<br /><br />For example, your second question here: "<i>The second is to ask to what extent trademarks are economically beneficial</i>" can only lead to an answer of "It depends." This is the only answer because the end result extends beyond the law itself and is determined in part by individual (and corporate) actions beyond the law. You also at this point interject the various subjective views of those who simply disagree with the concept itself. You are the one making a muddle here - the law is not a muddle. Complicated? Sure. But as Einstein is famously quoted (and the second part is critical):<br /><br />"Everything should be made as simple as possible, <b>but not simpler</b>." (emphasis added)THE US anonnoreply@blogger.com