Protecting one’s business is one thing.
Acting to “defend” one’s business trademarks in a way which seems, to me, to extend registered trademark rights to appropriation of ownership of words of the English language (and presumably other languages) and numbers to people or companies is quite another.
The report entitled “Fashion house Chanel accused of ‘bullying’ small Australian chocolate maker” in the Sydney Morning Herald 26 June 2015 I find troubling.
Why are trademarks registered by reference to “classes” of goods and services, if trademark owners and their lawyers seek to extend the benefits of registration well beyond the “classes” for which a particular trade mark is registered?
I have myself acted for a small business which was obliged to surrender a trademark, to which I believe it would have been entitled at law, when landed upon quite heavily by a multinational seemingly appropriating to itself a word of the English language (which did not appear in the multinational’s trademarks) because it would not afford the Court case it would take to obtain the result to which it was entitled.
So, I open the topic for comment.