[tialaramex]

> if you don't enforce your trademarks you stand to lose them

This is a widespread myth.

Trademarks don't come up with any duty to enforce, and there is no penalty, explicit or implied, for not doing so. You don't even give up your right to sue tomorrow for something done today unless you have given some sort of explicit undertaking not to sue, in which case Estoppel applies to that specific case.

For example if Nike told famous artist Bob Smith that they won't sue him for his limited run of 1000 hilarious "Just Fuck It" posters with the logo and style of Nike's "Just Do It", they can't wake up the next day and sue him anyway - estoppel prevents that from happening.

But say Bob is thrilled by how well those thousand sell, and commissions a T-shirt, $50 each, with the same image. That's not what Nike agreed to, estoppel doesn't apply, they can sue.

Or suppose Bob's rival Alex Lincoln sees the posters and decides hey, I can make "Just Fuck Off" posters, Nike don't have to humour that either, they haven't agreed not to sue Alex so they can no problem.

[ibotty]

I guess that depends on jurisdiction and I don't know the situation in the US. What I do know is that in the EU you have to enforce your trademark so that it does not get a commodity. That's a fight that Lego is fighting on multiple ends right now.

[tialaramex]

> What I do know is that in the EU you have to enforce your trademark so that it does not get a commodity.

When I say "myth" I mean, very specifically, that many people like you "know" this falsehood. What you're doing here is just underscoring how widespread the myth is.

"But I really believe it" doesn't stop it being a myth, neither does "But lots of people I know believe it". In fact if nobody believed it then it wouldn't be a myth - for example "Cheese is made exclusively by alligators from the tears of French Kings" isn't a myth because nobody believes that.

You can end up triggering Estoppel or Laches if you are sufficiently lax in enforcement, but your rights don't magically dissolve if you choose not to sue everybody who might be argued to use your mark. Nike could (and in the past have for similar works) just ignored this infringement.

Lego's big problem in Europe is that they would prefer if they were the only people who get to make building blocks, if other building blocks have to be needlessly incompatible then everybody will buy Lego, but if compatible blocks are allowed (which the EU says they must be) then you can just buy "real" Lego for Luke Skywalker and a Snowspeeder and then use cheap compatible Chinese blocks with your local store's brand for the white blocky Hoth landscape. That cuts into Lego profits. Too bad. But the cheap Chinese block makers don't pretend what they're making is "Lego" it doesn't have the Lego logo, it just fits together nicely.

[ibotty]

Sorry, you are wrong. It's not about compatibility. It really is about other brands being able to say "LEGO blocks" on the box in the shop and people posting youtube videos with LEGO in the title but using other brands.

[detaro]

These are actual Nike-made shoes, how would genericization ever apply to them? This has nothing to do with your examples.

[ibotty]

I was replying to the dispute of

> if you don't enforce your trademarks you stand to lose them

That has nothing to do with the article, yes.