The fact that they can attempt to enforce it is a big part of the problem.
Frivolous trademark and patent lawsuits is a whole damn industry, built upon milking money out of people who cannot reasonably afford to go through an entire trademark/patent dispute without going bankrupt - so they either give up what could potentially be a completely valid use case, or pay some sort of licensing fee they don't need to.
Anyone can attempt to enforce anything against anyone, so I'm not quite sure what you mean. Of course frivolous lawsuits and asymmetrical legal costs is a general problem of many modern legal systems, and I'm fine with general arguments about this problem. But this is clearly being presented as some extreme ridiculous example of a bad trademark, when it's very much not.
>Any one can attempt to enforce anything against anyone, so I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I mean that prior to the granting of this trademark, OSU could not send lawyers my way if I put "THE" on a hat.
Now they can.
>Of course frivolous lawsuits and asymmetrical legal costs is a general problem of many modern legal systems, and I'm fine with general arguments about this problem.
General arguments are usually bolstered by specific examples.
>But this is clearly being presented as some extreme ridiculous example of a bad trademark, when it's very much not.
I find it worrisome that so many people think trademarking the word "THE" is somehow not a bad trademark.
What the hell do you consider a bad trademark, if not just the word "the"?
> I mean that prior to the granting of this trademark, OSU could not send lawyers my way if I put "THE" on a hat. Now they can.
No, prior to the granting of this trademark it was still physically possible for their lawyers to threaten you. They wouldn't have had any legal standing, of course, but they still won't have any legal standing unless your products are likely to confuse consumers.
> General arguments are usually bolstered by specific examples.
Yes, but this is not a specific example of the general argument.
> I find it worrisome that so many people think trademarking the word "THE" is somehow not a bad trademark.
It is not a bad trademark. It is a mark that in some specific circumstances (specified in the trademark) is likely to lead consumers to believe a product's origin is Ohio State University. In those circumstances, it's absolutely reasonable to enforce the trademark. In any other circumstances where consumers are not likely to be confused about the product's origin, no trademark violation has occurred. Again, this is how all trademarks work.
> What the hell do you consider a bad trademark, if not just the word "the"?
One example of a bad trademark would be a mark that does not indicate to consumers anything about a product's origin.
I'm sure you see the need for a trademark system* so you can reliably buy products that you like and not fraudulent imitations. Try to make up a set of rules that give you the features you want from a trademark system and which don't have the features you don't want. That's what the trademark system we have is an attempt to do.
*even if you don't see the need for a trademark system, what matters is whether a majority of everybody else does, which it's pretty easy to see they do in a consumerist society.
Frivolous trademark and patent lawsuits is a whole damn industry, built upon milking money out of people who cannot reasonably afford to go through an entire trademark/patent dispute without going bankrupt - so they either give up what could potentially be a completely valid use case, or pay some sort of licensing fee they don't need to.