You can go ask a GPT, how trademark works, but my understanding is that if you have a trademark, you need to enforce the rights of that trademark, otherwise you lose it.
Discussion
If we just pick that one thing out of the whole mess, it's pretty clear that ignoring it is not something a legal team can do. I've had some small experience in that area. Once you're in that system, you're in all the way.
Trademarks are centralized bullshit. Want money for your product? Sell the best product you can. Compete!
That seems likely to me.
of course
trademarks are a form of intellectual property and an intellectual property is bullshit legal fiction
You're not wrong.. you're also not running a business in the real world
oh but i am
its just set up as a 501c3
intentionally
to be consistent with my values
they are not
they are about a proxy to authenticity of the source of a product
intellectual property is just a right to claim rent, really big big difference
do you buy a coca cola logo, or a fucking drink full of caffeine and caramel and phosphoric acid? with added coca extract... not to forget, that is key
if you want to fall down a rabbithole go research how coca cola monopolised coca extract supply (and how the actual cocaine is key to pharma industry production of anaesthetics)
let the buyer beware
also
they can be a legal fiction
AND
a proxy for authenticity
those statements are not mutually exclusive.
I'm just suggesting state violence isn't a preferable solution to the problem of ensuring authenticity.
Certification will exist in the absence of a state. Impersonation is a contract law breach, and contract disputes always need adjudicators. The state weakens impartiality but does not change the material facts of a case.
Close enough,
Every similar mark you don't squash will be used as evidence against you (should you try to enforce it later) to show that customers are capable of distinguishing between your mark and theirs, and therefore aren't confused wrt the source so there's no harm