3 ms·
It is still relevant. The fact that it is preexisting is obvious evidence that it shouldn't have been granted or was immediately overturned on challenge. The t
by s1artibartfast 2y ago
It is still relevant. The fact that it is preexisting is obvious evidence that it shouldn't have been granted or was immediately overturned on challenge.
The trademark office would not give me a trademark for "computers", "the internet", or "AI" if I walked in tomorrow
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> The trademark office would not give me a trademark for "computers", "the internet", or "AI" if I walked in tomorrow Again, so what? Would they give you a trademark on "The Bawdy House" for your chain of brothels? The problem with "computers", "internet", and "AI" is current usage, not former usage.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI don't understand what distinction you're trying to make between current and former. Pre-existing and continuous usage is strong evidence that the current usage is not exclusive to your product.