3 ms·
You left out a pretty big part: > ...That this Court declare that Impossible X’s trademark registrations in Registration Nos. 5376208, 5387588, and 5620625 be
by joelrunyon 5y ago
You left out a pretty big part:
> ...That this Court declare that Impossible X’s trademark registrations in Registration
Nos. 5376208, 5387588, and 5620625 be cancelled...
- zwieback 5y agogot it, so they are saying yours should be cancelled because you didn't use it for anything?
- mindslight 5y agoI'm going to chime in as yet another voice saying it feels somewhat cheap for you to have left out the part where Impossible X sued Impossible Foods first. Given the similarity between the logos and the fact you have to police a trademark to protect it, Impossible X's suit appears completely justified. But as it stands your current story comes across a bit dishonest, as if you're trying to claim this attempt to cancel your trademark just came out of nowhere. There is a larger situation here, and you do a disservice to both your audience and yourself by brushing past it.