There's a surprising number of cynical replies to this letter. I have two considerations in response:
1. Did the JD lawyer expect the letter to be publicly displayed when he wrote it? I think it's unreasonable to expect this.
2. Even if it is some sort of PR stunt, why is this a bad thing? Is it even possible to have a mutualistic relationship between consumers and companies any more?
I was thinking perhaps there's a willfulness argument to be built on an infringer refusing to alter a design even when the trademark owner offered to subsidize the alteration.
Also, as pointed out cross-thread, when your argument is uncertain, it pays to be nice.
Comments
There's a surprising number of cynical replies to this letter. I have two considerations in response:
1. Did the JD lawyer expect the letter to be publicly displayed when he wrote it? I think it's unreasonable to expect this.
2. Even if it is some sort of PR stunt, why is this a bad thing? Is it even possible to have a mutualistic relationship between consumers and companies any more?
I was thinking perhaps there's a willfulness argument to be built on an infringer refusing to alter a design even when the trademark owner offered to subsidize the alteration.
Also, as pointed out cross-thread, when your argument is uncertain, it pays to be nice.