View Single Post
Old 10-01-2020, 04:20 PM   #36
fjtorres
Grand Sorcerer
fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcentros View Post
You could be right. PocketBook registered their trademark in 2008. The pocketbook.com trademark was registered in 2012. The Panel made the point that they weren't authorized to decide trademark cases, but hinted that that was the direction PocketBook should have gone.
Trademarks are tricky.

The first question in trademark conflicts is usually about due diligence.
The same brand is allowable for products in vastly different different businesses where consumer confusion is unlikely. How close is close is subjectivee as Microsoft discovered with SKYDRIVE.

The second question is timeliness. Trademarks, unlike patents and copyrights, must be actively defended as well as exercised.

Pocketbook is going to have to explain how they've been doing business online since 2009 but only tried to claim the domain much later.

The answer might be good (Trademarks can be regional, as with Busch's beer) or it might not. They might lose on trademark but win on cybersquatting or vice-versa.
fjtorres is offline   Reply With Quote