KPop Demon Hunters was a resounding success for Netflix, coming out of nowhere to become the platform’s most-watched movie of all time and spawning several of last year’s biggest pop hits. It was less of a success for Demon Hunter, the Christian metal band that presumably has been getting mogged in the search bar ever…
Just so you know, they didn’t provide a straw man argument (which is necessarily a weakened position[hence straw]), they provided a statement of fact. Source: degree study in logic and philosophy.
You could respond that you found the fact irrelevant, but it seemed apposite and insightful to me.
I knew pedantic idiots like you would conflate the word “generic” with with the legal term “generic trademark.”
You mean people who know trade mark law would challenge your incorrect use of generic. There’s no such thing as a “generic trademark”, fwiw, though I realise you’re unwilling to learn.
I can’t open a shop at the State Fair and trademark “turkey legs” because I’m selling shoes that look like turkey feet
Yh, you’ve still got it wrong. You 100% can do this, because a trade mark applies in a trading category (except for ‘famous’ marks). So Apple Music can have a trade mark of “Apple” for selling goods in the music category (famously infringed by Apple Computers), etc., but cannot have a trade mark for selling things with the mark Apple that covers fruit sales, say; because “Apple” is not distinctive in that field of industry. Actually applications are in something called a Nice class (though AIUI there is a specific classification USPTO use that is narrower than the international Nice class).
There’s a close example to your “turkey leg” - for 6 years “ham hock” (ie pig leg) was a registered trade mark, https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/77579235. Why was it allowed? Well because it was for a board game, class 028, and so didn’t stop people from selling actual ham hocks.
I’m not 100% on trade marks in USA, but “confusion” in trade mark law usually has a specific test before the law that is not the same as merely requiring that consumers be confused. Like genericisation, confusion does not have its common meaning when discussing trade marks.
Just so you know, they didn’t provide a straw man argument (which is necessarily a weakened position[hence straw]), they provided a statement of fact. Source: degree study in logic and philosophy.
You could respond that you found the fact irrelevant, but it seemed apposite and insightful to me.
You mean people who know trade mark law would challenge your incorrect use of generic. There’s no such thing as a “generic trademark”, fwiw, though I realise you’re unwilling to learn.
Yh, you’ve still got it wrong. You 100% can do this, because a trade mark applies in a trading category (except for ‘famous’ marks). So Apple Music can have a trade mark of “Apple” for selling goods in the music category (famously infringed by Apple Computers), etc., but cannot have a trade mark for selling things with the mark Apple that covers fruit sales, say; because “Apple” is not distinctive in that field of industry. Actually applications are in something called a Nice class (though AIUI there is a specific classification USPTO use that is narrower than the international Nice class).
There’s a close example to your “turkey leg” - for 6 years “ham hock” (ie pig leg) was a registered trade mark, https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/77579235. Why was it allowed? Well because it was for a board game, class 028, and so didn’t stop people from selling actual ham hocks.
I’m not 100% on trade marks in USA, but “confusion” in trade mark law usually has a specific test before the law that is not the same as merely requiring that consumers be confused. Like genericisation, confusion does not have its common meaning when discussing trade marks.