|
| | > My wife spends way too much time at the local Marshall's store,
and
| > I've been there many times with her. It strikes me at times that
the
| > some of the goods at these stores might not be authentic, but I
have
| > no real evidence to back up this statement. However, why someone
| > would attempt to sell jeans with the ASUS trademark or brand is
quite
| > interesting. Perhaps the jeans were made for a special event, and
the
| > closeout stores bought the remains of the lot.
|
| You have to wonder if maybe someone saw the Asus logo, had no idea
what it
| was, and thought it might be something worth tacking onto clothes.
It's not
| like someone hasn't made a mint with "Caterpillar" clothing using
the heavy
| equipment maker's logo, not to mention all the other advertisingwear
that
| you see on people.
|
| > As a trademark attorney, I have strong reason to believe there is
a
| > large quantity of counterfeit goods flowing in the "streams of
| > commerce". Ever seen a street vendor with name brand watches
(Rolex,
| > Gucci, Tag Heuer, etc.) for sale at unbelievable prices?
|
| I know it dilutes their brands, but do they really think the guy
buying a
| Rolex on a Greenwich Village corner for a $20 is a "lost sale"?
|
|
The watch "knockoffs" are not a dilution legal issue, they are direct
trademark infringement issues. Dilution occurs when a famous
trademark is used on "unrelated" goods or services, such as the Asus
brand on jeans. As to Rolex and the impact of counterfeits, it only
takes one sucker that believes the watch is real (perhaps received as
a gift from a cheap gift giver) to give Rolex a bad name for quality.
It's not the "lost sale" that concerns Rolex as much as the injury to
their reputation for producing watches of the highest quality. A
trademark conveys, to the consumer, a "guarantee of a known level of
quality" and cheap imitations have a serious and detrimental impact on
a well company's established reputation for quality.
