i cannot stop laughing, it's the shadiest trademark doctrine to invoke, where do i even begin with how shady this is
-
-
En réponse à @sarahjeong
"Dilution" as an aspect of trademark law was created by statute in 1996, and strengthened again via statute in 2006
2 réponses 3 Retweets 11 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
The 2006 statute was passed in response to Victoria's Secret losing a case against a store called "Victor's Secret" that sold sex toys
2 réponses 5 Retweets 13 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
In short, the gist of dilution by tarnishment is that it harms a ~good~ brand by associating it with something tacky, cheap, and bad
1 réponse 6 Retweets 28 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
............ and that, my friends, is what the Kardashian lawyers claimed Blac Chyna's trademark did
1 réponse 7 Retweets 37 j'aime -
-
En réponse à @sarahjeong
To be clear, it looks like the opposition was sent automatically because bots flagged the "Kardashian" in Blac Chyna's application
1 réponse 0 Retweet 8 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
I don't know why the Kardashians retain attorneys who don't have a sense of what's even going on with the brand they're policing,
1 réponse 0 Retweet 10 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
or why, as
@travelingheidi, the entire family doesn't just have a Recommended Use Agreement on file2 réponses 0 Retweet 5 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
but I don't care because this is hands down the funniest thing that has ever happened at USPTO (which, to be fair, a pretty low bar)
2 réponses 1 Retweet 16 j'aime
god bless this tsdr filing, for it is glorious in our eyes
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.