[perlpimp]

thats the thing about trademarks you have to defend them afaik otherwise they are worthless. I would venture these stupid suits are there in case some drink company will make a monster drink the defence would be better. ianal

[macintux]

> A trademark owner doesn't need to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential. This is designed to prevent owners from continually being tied up in litigation for fear of cancellation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

[dalmo3]

> perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential

What if there's no infringement at all? As is clearly the case here.

[macintux]

I considered pointing that out: this suit seems absolutely unnecessary, but as with most of us here, ianal.

[ncallaway]

> thats the thing about trademarks you have to defend them afaik otherwise they are worthless.

Well, that's what lawyers often say about trademark law. But, then again, their advice to to pay lawyers more money to deal with the situation.

The reality is not nearly so cut and dried. You do have to police a trademark to some extent, and you can lose it for not policing it. So, it's not like the lawyers are lying. But any lawyer recommending action like this to "protect your trademark" is greatly exaggerating the risk in order to increase their billable hours.

[RankingMember]

> ianal

Is this sort of self-disclosure really suitable or relevant here?