4 ms·
I'm slightly more sympathetic having heard their side--there is more to it than just random legal threats out of the blue. ..BUT.. This suit revolves more arou
by ericb 14y ago
I'm slightly more sympathetic having heard their side--there is more to it than just random legal threats out of the blue.
..BUT.. This suit revolves more around "we felt wronged" than "this clearly infringes our trademark." The only similarity in the trademark is the word "who." The law is the law, your feelings are irrelevant.
- clarkevans 14y agoBesides starting with the same keyword, Hear and Near have the same visual shape and sound almost identical. I think it's very similar, in my opinion, certainly enough to confuse a potential user. If you don't defend your trademark, you lose it.
- jaems33 14y agoNot to mention that they can mean the same things in certain contexts. 'Clark Evans is near me, as he is in SoHo.' 'Clark Evans is here in SoHo.' I mean I have to think a bit harder in recalling who's who in this argument. Even the more popular case of Apple Corps v Apple Computer is more distinguishable.
- taligent 14y agoI don't think you understand how trademarks work. When you have two products in the same space with very similar names then you have a problem. And it is your obligation as the owner of a trademark to defend it.
- pbreit 14y agoBut the names are not that similar...certainly not similar enough from a trademark perspective.