Quote:
Originally Posted by Overread  The problem, however, is that if the company does not protect the IP copyright that they have purchased/licensed then it opens the floodgates to other possible infringements and I think that if they allow unchallenged use of the IP it might even void the copyright in some form -- at the very least it might well lead to future possible licence purchases paying far below the original costs to use the licence, based on the fact that other users are using it for free without permission.
Sadly this is where the cold hard corporate world and legal world hits real life in a way that generally results in bad feelings. However we have to remember that whilst greed is a motive in these affairs, there is also the underlying protection that copyright affords to people which also has to be upheld if it is to remain viable. |
But this cafe has been going for six years. Has there, in that time, been a flood of opportunistic use of the word "Hobbit" brought about by SZC's previous failure to challenge them?
In any case, I thought the point of IP law was to prevent or redress damage caused to the IP's owner. Damage usually means loss of income and/or reputation, etc. Neither seems to have occurred here, which is why I believe they have no case (if my understanding of IP law is accurate, which is a bit of an "if"), and why they should stick to going after people who have caused such damage.