You never know. We had a local children’s daycare, a small mom & pop operation (served only 8 kids) that had Bugs Bunny on its sign–out in front of the house where it was located–deep in a subdivision and nowhere near a main road. One fine day they got both a cease-and-desist and papers for a law suit from WB. They sued for just enough to put the daycare out of business. Sometimes they will target the little guy both to send a message, and to derail any possible legal precedent (that was WB’s excuse anyway).
That is indeed the rationale. In order to defend a challenge to trademark, the trademark holder needs to be able to show a consistently vigorous defense of that trademark. It doesn’t matter that having Bugs Bunny on a daycare’s sign doesn’t hurt the corporation monetarily; the corporation needs to have a track record of consistent defense. (That said, in most cases, the megacorp will make an easy offer to something small like a daycare: “Change the sign and we won’t sue.” Either the corporate attorneys were having a bad day, or the daycare owners stupidly decided to fight.)
That is a very real problem. I worked for a business that had a fairly common word used in its corporate name, and identity. And a fairly common graphic, as well; nothing remarkable or unique about it. However, they had no choice but to consistently defend the trademarking, lest they lose it.
(Nathan, can you adjust these comment boxes so that we get the pull-downs to enlarge them BEFORE we type? Any chance? I like the new look–I do–but any possibility of this?)
To add to the idiocy, the title is “Narnia” spelled backwards.
In addition, that white critter is close enough to a lightfury (How to Train Your Dragon) that a ‘cue the attorneys’ might be in order.
I always wonder about that. I don’t think that most self-pub authors (I am one) are really worthwhile targets for litigation.
You never know. We had a local children’s daycare, a small mom & pop operation (served only 8 kids) that had Bugs Bunny on its sign–out in front of the house where it was located–deep in a subdivision and nowhere near a main road. One fine day they got both a cease-and-desist and papers for a law suit from WB. They sued for just enough to put the daycare out of business. Sometimes they will target the little guy both to send a message, and to derail any possible legal precedent (that was WB’s excuse anyway).
That is indeed the rationale. In order to defend a challenge to trademark, the trademark holder needs to be able to show a consistently vigorous defense of that trademark. It doesn’t matter that having Bugs Bunny on a daycare’s sign doesn’t hurt the corporation monetarily; the corporation needs to have a track record of consistent defense. (That said, in most cases, the megacorp will make an easy offer to something small like a daycare: “Change the sign and we won’t sue.” Either the corporate attorneys were having a bad day, or the daycare owners stupidly decided to fight.)
That is a very real problem. I worked for a business that had a fairly common word used in its corporate name, and identity. And a fairly common graphic, as well; nothing remarkable or unique about it. However, they had no choice but to consistently defend the trademarking, lest they lose it.
(Nathan, can you adjust these comment boxes so that we get the pull-downs to enlarge them BEFORE we type? Any chance? I like the new look–I do–but any possibility of this?)
That is apparently not within my power.
Rats. Okay, I’ll learn to live with it. As rarely as I’m getting over here these days….(sigh).
My kids were drawing better than this in first grade.