WIPR survey: Readers agree that US litigation costs are ‘outrageous’

Nearly 90% of WIPR readers agree with football governing body FIFA after it stated that US litigation costs are “outrageous”.

WIPR had asked readers whether they agreed with the head of IP at FIFA, Daniel Zohny, who also branded the costs a “joke”, after admitting FIFA previously had to settle with a so-called “troll” because litigation in the US is so expensive.

When asked if they agreed, 89% of readers stated they do.

One said that “the high costs deter rights owners from pursuing their rights, which allows the person/company with more money to succeed”.

Another referred to the costs as “prohibitive for SMEs and even big companies”, before going on to claim that many violators are “not prosecuted because of the outrageous costs and the duration of the litigation”.

Despite the vast majority of readers agreeing, there were some who felt Zohny was slightly off the mark.

One admitted that while the costs of litigation were high, it was a price worth paying as “the values of strong US IP rights are also high and the US market is typically the largest”.

Zohny was speaking at the Marques 31st Annual Conference in Prague, and was joined on the panel by Katherine Tsang, assistant general counsel, IP at Diageo.

She said the alcoholic drinks maker faced similar problems in the UK when looking to protect its various brands.

One reader seemingly backed this view, stating that US costs are “no more expensive than in England”.

For this week’s question we ask:  WIPR  reported last week that lawyers from Velcro released a music video asking people not to use their brand name incorrectly because of concerns over trademark ‘genericide’. Do you think such an unconventional approach can help brands prevent their marks becoming generic?

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.