Just because the title is identical doesn't make books duplicates.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

It's a valid trademark but not enforceable. That's why Kleenex is a made up word, easier to enforce.

Intel found out that numbers can't be Tm'd, Thus the Pentium vs 80586 and others soon followed

[Quoth]

Apple Computer (now just Apple) had to settle with the Beatles several times. The Beatles own label was Apple Corp. One time the settlement included the promise Apple Computers wouldn't sell music, because trademarks / company names often only apply to a range of activities. Then Apple created iTunes and got sued again.
Ironically the Apple name and logo (originally the bitten apple had coloured stripes, but neither Newton's rainbow or the 6 colour LGBTQI one) was chosen because at least one of the three founders was a Beatle fan.

[Quoth]

Zilog tried to own "Z", Intel "i" and T-Mobile "T-", they failed.
Apple had to buy the iPhone and iPad names from Cisco and I think Fujitsu. They later had to pay Swissrail for pinching the appearance of the railway clock.

Coca-cola used their money & lawyers to scare off a startup company with a hardly similar at all name for their alcohol free flavoured gin to one of Coca-cola's so called "natural juice" brands.

Mostly it's about who has bigger funding for their lawyers, using "protecting" the brand as an excuse.

[sjfan]

Originally Posted by bizzybody

The DC Marvel trademark is why movies like "The Incredibles" call them "supers" or "mutants" or whatever other word that gets used other than superhero or superheros.

DC and Marvel have been notably quiet on that front in recent months—for instance, about a year or two ago the number of third-party trademark applications for names with “Superhero” in them that did not receive a DC/Marvel challenge skyrocketed.

It's unclear whether they've given up on attempting to assert control, the next couple of years will be illustrative.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/10...ero-trademark/