I’ve been a little busy, so I’m late to the party on this one, but Randazza, Popehat, Greenfield, and Bennett (among others) have been piling onto Nordstrom for their attempts to bully a small business.
There’s a nice summary of the situation at InformationWeek, but basically the U.S. Patent and Trademark (PTO) office mistakenly approved “Beckon” as a trademark for Nordstrom for a forthcoming line of clothing. The problem was that a small two-person clothing business had already filed for a trademark for the very similar “Beckons” which they had been using for years.
This forced the small business to fight Nordstrom for the trademark, and cost them a fortune in legal fees and expenses. Legally speaking, Nordstrom didn’t have a leg to stand on. The small business had filed first and they were already doing business using the “Beckons” name, so trademark law clearly was unambiguously in their favor. Nevertheless, Nordstrom fought back.
Eventually, the PTO owned up to their error and revoked Nordstrom’s “Beckon” trademark.
That should have ended the matter, but instead Nordstrom filed a claim that the “Beckons” trademark had been abandoned. It’s a losing claim, because the business is still active, but now the two women who own “Beckons” have to fight another legal battle to protect their business. However, the costs are so huge that it may actually drive them out of business.
In other words, Nordstrom is engaging in a legal battle where it is clearly in the wrong solely because they’re hoping to drive the real Beckons out of business with legal costs. They’re using their size to bully a little guy.
Gucci