Sorry that the links to USPTO don't work, but the TLDR is there are dozens of "KIK"s that have nothing to do with the kik messaging product
-
-
npm is operating in a sufficiently broad venue that trademark claims have to be based on violating the relevant category, which "kik" wasn't
-
thought experiment: does kik have the right to demand a TV company reject an ad by another "kik" that is not a messaging product?
-
@wycats Absolutely they do, if they believe it to be in scope. You can have a plumbing service called Kik, might not another app. -
@dhh there's a TM registered to a TX company for KIK internet services. -
@dhh but again, I accept TM justifications. NPM intentionally chose to expressly reject them. -
@wycats Which seems completely silly given that this whole thing was kicked (ha!) off by a TM holder approaching NPM. Denying the obvious. -
@dhh agreed. If they said the process was about TM disputed I'd know how to respond to frivolous filings in the future. -
@dhh the problem is it's not even clear they asked their lawyer what to do.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@wycats I believe if it was in court, Azer would be right about trademark issue. The only big mistake was what npm did by moving the name.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.