Luxury4Play.com banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
This is a trademark case, not a patent case or a copyright case. The company has a registered trademark that is live on the principal register (SN76434708), so he's got a valid claim.

With respect to "having studied IP law, i'm gonna go ahead an posit that the term "red gold" is in such general usage as to not be copyrightable...." you're just wrong, evidenced by not understanding the fundamental difference between what a copyright is and what a trademark is. I think you meant to say that you believed "red gold" to be merely descriptive, which is one reason a trademark examiner can reject the application, but that inquiry has passed, since the applicant prevailed and had the mark registered. Or you may have meant that defendants will claim the term "red gold" has become generic, which is one reason to invalidate the registration. There, the theory is that the term "red gold" no longer performs the essential trademark function by serving as an indication of a source of origin for goods in the class specified by the applicant. That is much more of an uphill battle for a defendant.
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top