tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7644639724746109770..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Wednesday Whimsies From Across the PondVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57786189113135933992014-12-11T12:49:32.706+00:002014-12-11T12:49:32.706+00:00Hello Michael,
Thank you for your comment.
In th...Hello Michael,<br /><br />Thank you for your comment.<br /><br />In the US, only famous marks can claim dilution, including dilution by blurring, and the Plaintiff would have to prove that the Hype-Wipe mark is famous. It is doubtful it could prove it, and Plaintiff seems to be aware of it, as it did not claim dilution in its complaint. <br /><br />As for due diligence, Defendants'mark was registered by the USPTO, and so one can argue that they indeed performed due diligence. <br /><br />The mark was published for opposition before publication, but Plaintiff did not come forward then. Instead, it sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendants after their mark was registered, and then filed a suit.<br /> <br />There is room for debate to find out who is right, the USPTO/Defendant or the Plaintiff? Unfortunately, debating became a too-costly option for Defendants after the suit was filed. That was my point. <br />Marie-Andree Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5549552009893522732014-12-10T13:01:18.793+00:002014-12-10T13:01:18.793+00:00The problem is not just likelihood of confusion, b...The problem is not just likelihood of confusion, but also dilution and branding. I don't think they'll collect a million dollars, but one has to stop third parties choosing confusingly similar names. The teenagers could have done due diligence...Michael Factorhttp://blog.ipfactor.co.ilnoreply@blogger.com