View Single Comment
For example, if many third parties subsequently begin using the same or a similar mark in commerce in connection with goods and/or services similar to the trademark owner’s after the owner has already begun to use its trademark, and the owner does little or nothing to police its mark, the mark is likely to lose some or all of its value as a source identifier in the marketplace.
So by that logic, in order to take down a Copyright, "Vigilante Style", All that would need to happen, is some crazy simultaneous "mob attack" that goes on so frequently and in such high volume, that it would be "financially Taxing" for them to police every instance and keep up?
can still affect the distinctiveness of the mark in the mind of the public
What deems/determines this factor to the effect that this states?
Pfft, Law writers ¬_¬. . .
including pre-existing stuff that they already produced
Who the. . .
That doesn't Even. . .
Like I said, Law writers.
Chibi Space Marines playing soccer, how many people would really care that it existed?
The same people that blindly purchase anything with the word Metroid or Prime in the title name and THINK it's the *ACTUAL THING.
*As in, from what We KNOW dam well what Metroid is, NOT what Nintendo Shoehorns it to be; 'head cannon', I guess. . .
Also, perfect description for the game.
if consumers care more about the thing that trademarks specifically protect, then why shouldn't the companies?
Because they don't hold our best interests in mind, like EVER anymore.
That take down action right here, Proves that. Why? Because they didn't even Follow up with a statement to the 'public' about it(THIS after NOT even Remembering Metroids Birthday). They like protecting their own asses, but when it comes to our affection, they always seem to flip us the bird every chance they get.
"We don't want YOUR Affection OR Admiration, just Your money. And sometimes, Not even that."
Want to know when I truly believe that statement.
Time may be drawing near for that if they keep this BS up.