Tmas Greetings!

Topic

New Reply

LEGAL BRIEF By Max Stul Oppenheimer, Esq. It is a mystery why a company would voluntarily replace one of the most recognizable product names in the wo
[See the full post at: Tmas Greetings!]

8 users thanked author for this post.

ibe98765, fisher75, SueW, DLivesInTexas, rc primak, Sky, lmacri, windbg

Reply | Quote

Replies

Often due to negligence and incompetence.

Reply | Quote

This kind of thing does happen occasionally with abandoned trademarks.  Another example is with Naugles, a Southern California chain that was bought out by Del Taco.  The last Naugles-branded locations in Nevada were converted to Del Taco or sold out in 1995.

In the early 2010s, a Naugles fan started producing stuff with the Naugles branding (and reverse-engineered Naugles’ menu).  There was legal action from Del Taco, and in 2015, the Patent and Trademark Office ruled that Del Taco abandoned the brand, and that the new operator was free to continue using it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naugles

For what it is worth, in both California and Nevada, both states have a single “Standard” branded gas station.  By the 1970’s virtually all of the stations belonging to Chevron (the inheritor of Standard Oil of California) were converted to Chevron.  But in each state, the continued operation of one Standard station allows Chevron to continue (and preventing others from) using the Standard brand name.

Reply | Quote

Technically, the new brand is not X, but 𝕏. That’s a Unicode Character, and these also have patent and trademark implications. The devil’s in the details.

Meta already appears to hold the rights to ‘X.’ It could make Twitter’s rebrand complicated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-holds-rights-to-x-twitter-rebrand-elon-musk-2023-7 

-- rc primak

1 user thanked author for this post.

ibe98765

Reply | Quote