You definitely need to provide evidence of use.
replyhttps://www.dreyfus.fr/en/2025/03/18/proof-of-use-in-the-uni...
> You lose a trademark if it becomes generic
replyAnd this is my biggest gripe with products from well-known companies that use already generic terms like "Apple", "Word", "X", or "Inkwell". I understand claiming exclusivity of words like "Microsoft Word", but not for the word "Word" itself.
Yeah where does it become a violation. Like if i wrote an app called wordsmith, and it does basically what word does, let you edit documents, is that really a trademark violation? Because i used the word word?
replyIn the business, we often refer to that sort of reminder activity as "defending" against genericism. Practice varies by country but the point is often to show that you are not passively allowing the trade mark to become generic. Yes, you can often ignore letters (unless they request an answer or make a threat, which might be a different situation) - but it's usually a good idea to spend some time looking at it from the other person's perspective first.
replyYeah, but there are a TON of things that trademark lawyers do that are counter-productive. I put vaguely aggressive letters from trademark owners in that category, such as Monster energy drinks thinking they get to control how others use the word "monster."
replyI remember when the Apple logo stickers Apple packed in had a little (R), which was later dropped, since it's ugly and not legally required. But no doubt some lawyer advised putting it there to begin with.
The Monster example is funny. An attorney friend of mine had a job that required him to go after everyone in the world who used the word "Monster", because their client, Monster Cable, thought they owned the word in every sense and context.
replyI wonder if there was ever an epic Monster sugarwater vs Monster Cable showndown.