

Many individuals hold a belief that trademark rights can be forfeited or lost if the trademark owner fails to address infringing uses of the mark. However, the truth is more nuanced. Courts vary in their interpretations regarding the impact of a failure to address infringements on one’s trademark rights. Some courts assert it makes no difference, while others argue it could lead to abandonment or loss of trademark rights. There’s also a middle ground where failure to address can weaken a mark but not necessarily result in total abandonment. It’s crucial to note that this issue revolves around whether not addressing one infringer affects a trademark owner’s rights concerning another infringer or the general market. It’s distinct from the doctrine of laches, which isn’t discussed here.
Trademark abandonment occurs when a mark’s owner discontinues its use without intent to resume. Disuse for a specified period, typically three years, raises a presumption of abandonment. Additionally, actions by the owner that lead the mark to become generic can also constitute abandonment under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1127).
Courts have taken three primary approaches to the failure to address infringements:
There’s no straightforward answer. Trademark owners aren’t obligated to sue every infringer, but in cases of widespread violation, not taking action could significantly impact their rights. Many larger companies, investing heavily in their trademarks, tend to err on the side of caution by pursuing infringers. Analyzing the scale of infringement, frequency of use, and other factors helps in devising a brand protection strategy that safeguards rights without unnecessary legal battles.
In conclusion, while it’s important to address infringing uses, the impact on trademark rights is nuanced and multifaceted. Prudent business owners should remain vigilant, taking appropriate action when necessary, and craft a protective strategy considering various factors.