How do the courts view changes to contract after suit filed? If the primary focus is remediation or correction, they've probably met the goal. if the primary purpose of the suit is the stated outcome (taking ownership of the trademark, or nullifying its exclusivity), then this reaction won't alter the basis of argument before the change, since it's only a reaction to change, not an actual evident use of the IPR and it's value.
If you drop something valuable in a legal domain where after 3 months it's finders keepers it doesn't magically become yours again because you said "not like that" basically.
OTOH if there is no legal domain with an N month rule, you can say "thats mine" forever.
"we didn't mean to let thermos become a generic" wasn't really a workable argument.
(NAL. probably using words in ways which make Lawyers wince)
How do the courts view changes to contract after suit filed? If the primary focus is remediation or correction, they've probably met the goal. if the primary purpose of the suit is the stated outcome (taking ownership of the trademark, or nullifying its exclusivity), then this reaction won't alter the basis of argument before the change, since it's only a reaction to change, not an actual evident use of the IPR and it's value.
If you drop something valuable in a legal domain where after 3 months it's finders keepers it doesn't magically become yours again because you said "not like that" basically.
OTOH if there is no legal domain with an N month rule, you can say "thats mine" forever.
"we didn't mean to let thermos become a generic" wasn't really a workable argument.
(NAL. probably using words in ways which make Lawyers wince)
This means they view any network with the name Twitter as a threat, right? Like they fear users would actually go there instead of X?