Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberman tM
I'm not trying to argue that it isn't. (Though I would believe them if they said it was an accident.)
I'm arguing that the design itself isn't worth protecting, as it doesn't contain enough unique or "non-basic" design.
|
It is an 84-year old design so when the mark was awarded it could easily have been unique then.
More importantly, trademarks (unlike patents) don't *have* to be unique or non-obvious; they merely have to be distinctive and serve as an identifier for the specific company/product.