Clarity is key – the lack of uniform standard is the only reason trademark trolls can be successful. Supreme court clarification solves.

IV. Potential Remedies Available in Trademark Law One remedy to tackle Big Tech’s monopoly power includes breaking up Big Tech and regulating Big Tech merger activity (and its trademarks) to prevent unfair competition.151 Big Tech’s trademark dominance readily brings to mind the power and influence held by oil barons and the various monopolies of the early 1900s. Anti-trust laws were enacted to prevent the dominance of the various monopolies that emerged in the U.S.152 Although the problem is similar today, this solution probably is unrealistic due to the different nature of the dominance held by Big Tech and the old oil barons. Whereas the previous monopolies dominated in obviously distinctive spheres, many Big Tech companies exist in the same plane but in slightly different niches. Facebook, Google, Apple all share notable number of users, yet their business model does not conflict with one another. Therefore, even if these three companies are broken up, other companies will likely just take their place because the space these companies occupy on the economic ladder is so undefined and subject to change. An alternative remedy available in trademark law includes imposing higher fees on Big Tech companies that engage in frivolous or meritless trademark infringement claims. However, this is a difficult proposition because the likelihood of confusion multifactor test, discussed supra, is implemented differently by different circuits.153 Because no uniform standard has emerged on how many factors are needed to trigger a likelihood of confusion, the only way that this solution can become realistic is if the Supreme Court, or relevant authorities, implement a consistent confusion-based multifactor test to be used by all circuit courts. A uniform standard established across all circuits, will likely discourage Big Tech companies from pursuing trademark infringement suits based on meritless claims for likelihood of consumer confusion. A uniform standard would mean Big Tech companies who rely on their jurisdictional advantages would no longer be able to hide behind the shield of the law simply because they have more resources to file an infringement suit in a favorable jurisdiction. This should lead to less frivolous and meritless infringement claims and encourage additional competitors to enter the market. Conclusion The current market dominance by Big Tech makes the cost of market entry prohibitive and chances of success slim.154 As Big Tech acquires more technology companies, its market dominance is strengthened; thereby, making it more difficult for consumers to switch providers. High entry barriers and high switching costs reinforce Big Tech brand loyalty.155 Big Tech strategies run contrary to the intent of U.S. trademark law (i.e., to promote quality of goods and services by allowing customers to associate brands with quality). Big Tech has used trademark law to promote their monopoly power while decreasing the quality of their services. This is a significant problem in the Intellectual Property sphere today and requires immediate correction. Because we are in unchartered historical waters, the solutions are not clear, but what is clear is that unless an actionable solution emerges soon, Big Tech market dominance will not stop, and their continued exploitation of trademark law will only increase as they seek to further entrench themselves into the lives of every American.