3 ms·
No. I'm pointing out how, in spite of that, I believe this mark as applied for is not distinctive in the least and to me creates confusion with the marks of pe
by Natsu 13y ago
No. I'm pointing out how, in spite of that, I believe this mark as applied for is not distinctive in the least and to me creates confusion with the marks of people who used them in commerce first.
- pinoyyid 13y agoA Trademark is only granted for a narrow field of use. So the headline assertion that King want to monopilize the word "Candy" is wide of the mark. As thaumasiotes states, the purpose is to protect consumers by rogue companies passing off their products in an attempt to deceive. All trademark applications are inspected before grant, that inspection being focussed on what is right for the average consumer, not for the company making the application, nor its competitors. In this case, imho, the trademark is legitimate. A quick scan of many of the objectioners shows that they are clearly aiming to deceive the average consumer.
- Natsu 13y agoWell, all of my examples are for games which is quite narrow. Are they not claiming 'games' as one of their categories?