Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kirk
No need to be snippy.
|
Didn't mean to be "snippy". Just wondering why the thread seems to center around why this company, Vivendi, is chastised for doing what it had every right, and responsibility, to do. I.e., protect its Brand.
It's hard not to pick up a newspaper and see what most would consider a frivolous civil lawsuit by a major corporation against a small shop owner using a similar name.
The reason these companies do so is because failure to do so might result in the loss of their exclusive rights to their Brand. Sometimes it seems to border on insanity, but, in the protect it or lose it arena, insanity prevails.
The point I was trying to make is that Vivendi had every right to do what it did in order to protect its Brand. Whether anyone likes what they did is immaterial.
I do not know anything about the "arbitrary" nature of their "Cease and Desist" orders. My guess is that, if they are seen as arbitrary, it will bite them in the ass in the long term. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation at hand.