3 ms·
Trademark abuse is a "business-on-business crime". Even if you were in the right (nobody was confused about branding except for you mother, apparently), this is
by legitster 2y ago
Trademark abuse is a "business-on-business crime". Even if you were in the right (nobody was confused about branding except for you mother, apparently), this is not a cause you can expect users to rally behind.
Even the staunchest Disney fans don't rally behind Disney when one of their "trademarks gets abused".
- lrae 2y agoThat's actually not true. E.g. Nintendo fans vs Palworld / Pocket Pair.
- nolok 2y agoYou're actually proving his point. Palword vs Nintendo is not a trademark case but a patent one. People in gaming are notably very much not in love of patents restricting what games can or can't do.
- Marsymars 2y ago> Trademark abuse is a "business-on-business crime". So, I get where you're coming from, but I also have some second-hand exposure here because my wife is a trademark agent (and has to put up with all my inane hypotheticals about trademarks) - while you can call it a "business-on business crime", the question of fact revolves around whether an average consumer would get confused. As a consumer, I'd feel pretty miffed about being misled into purchasing a product due to trademark confusion.