2. Don't companies have an obligation to defend their trademark or risk not being able to defend them in the future?
He has a show about consumer rights ("Joe Lycett's Got Your Back", which I suppose will be "Hugo Boss's Got Your Back" next season) so it's in his wheelhouse.
The problem is that this question ultimately hinges on a court's judgment, and they can't know in advance what evidence of "reasonable defense of their trademark" will satisfy all the judges in all the cases where this issue is examined.
So from the trademark-holder's point of view, the approach has to be to do everything they can to be seen by the courts to be doing anything necessary to defend their brand; particularly for such a big/valuable brand like Hugo Boss, it's too risky to do anything less.
When you talk to people in these kinds of companies privately, they don't personally care at all if some largely-unrelated small business somewhere has a name that is vaguely reminiscent of theirs, and they'd rather not have to waste time and money taking action against them.
These indignant reactions always happen when a big corporate is seen to be bullying small, defenceless companies over trademarks, but on this topic it's a case of "don't hate the player, hate the game".
There was a time when McDonald's was being a major jerk about trademark lawsuits. Then THE MCDONALD of the the clan MCDONALD had a talk with them about being reasonable. Haven't been as many stupid lawsuits since then . . .
but i have read and learned crazy things like you can't have part of their name in your own products or company names. or again, you can't use their main colors for branding.
ridiculous!
He held on to it for a long time, but I noticed in the last couple of years that it now redirects to www.hugoboss.com. Knowing this particular person I am fairly sure that he would have sold it to them for a pretty penny.
Perhaps there's opportunity to bag the few others and drop them an offer. =)
The shirts weren’t trying to knock off or reference Kentucky Athletics in any way, but that didn’t stop UK from putting legal resources behind their effort. Yet another example of how the legal system is built for the rich.
0: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/us/-legal-moonshiner-and-...