Solvency Mech 2
Jennifer M. Danker (2024 J.D. Candidate – THE University of Ohio) “To "THE" or not to "THE"? The Question has been Answered: An Examination of Trademark Bullying in the context of the Ohio State University's Recent Trademark Registration” 30 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 323 (2023). Journal of International Property Law https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol30/iss2/4
REMOVING ENFORCEMENT FROM THE EQUATION Trademark owners must proactively ensure that no third-party uses infringe on their marks or create consumer confusion in the marketplace.180 Increasingly though, trademark owners use concern about consumer confusion as to mask their true aim to snuff out marketplace competition. Because bolstering trademark strength is currently achieved in part by the active pursuit of alleged infringers and consumer confusers, the concealment of the underlying desire to squash competition continues. Therefore, removing mark strength from the likelihood of confusion equation and, in turn, the amount of protection afforded to the mark would force much of the negative behavior to cease. As previously mentioned in this Note, one of the roots of trademark law is to protect consumers.181 Consumers rarely benefit from the stifling of competition.182 However, trademark owners are. Protecting and growing market share by increasing goodwill with consumers makes trademarks valuable in the marketplace.183 However, diminishing consumer choice by policing others’ use of a mark displays neither consumer identification, goodwill, nor mark strength. It only shows that a mark owner possessed enough resources to over-monitor its mark. Therefore, trademark law should cease relying on a mark’s commercial strength to justify additional protection.