I hope this guy is getting good legal advice. He seems focused on things that aren’t that central to his case, like whether words or word-parts are dictionary w

I hope this guy is getting good legal advice. He seems focused on things that aren’t that central to his case, like whether words or word-parts are dictionary words, or whether Google had complained about the name in the past (how could Google object to a trademark that hadn’t been filed for?) I have no idea of the specific laws and regulations in effect in this case, but generally an infringement case like this is about whether the defendant’s mark is likely to cause confusion in consumers. My opinion in this case is “no”, but it’s arguable and for whatever reason Google wants to argue it. I also wonder if there is much to win here. How much does the guy have invested in that name and how much future value does it have over alternatives? It might be less than the risk of legal costs. I don’t see a compelling general principle here that is bigger than the case itself either.