It boils down to likelihood of confusion. I think there would be a legitimate concern here, tbh. But they could have come to an agreement when one registered their mark after the other one had already.
I was talking about being able to get a trademark for anything that is “superX” where X could be literally any word in the dictionary. Its too vague and generic and such an application would almost certainly be rejected.
Supercell, Supergiant, and Supermassive are all trademarkable, and while “super” could cause some confusion, the USPTO doesn’t care so much about that particular point because the wordmarks are all different and the logos are all different.
There is technically nothing stopping a computer software company trademark for “Microstar.” Unless it already exists obviously, but for the sake of argument let’s imagine it doesn’t. Even though the name could cause some confusion with Microsoft, as long as the wordmark and logo design are different they USPTO won’t care.
I have prosecuted plenty of trademarks. The logos and words are separate trademarks. For the word mark alone, Supergiant and Supermassive absolutely are likely to raise an initial LOC rejection in the same exact class of goods and services. It boils down to whether the similar words are likely to leave a confusingly similar market impression upon consumers. I legit think here it would be hard to argue around with a typical examining attorney–but the trademark office has a ton more lattitude in grants than the patent office, so it isn’t out of the question it could’ve been successfully argued or even granted initially.
I mean, mikerowesoft might have a visibly different spelling and logo, but it is audibly pronounced the same. There is a legitimate argument to be made there, no matter how stupid it is. But none of that matters because it was settled out of court. And Microsoft admitted afterward they were too heavy handed in their approach.
I am pretty sure you cannot trademark “super” + some other word. You have to be more specific. Well, at least in the USA.
It boils down to likelihood of confusion. I think there would be a legitimate concern here, tbh. But they could have come to an agreement when one registered their mark after the other one had already.
I was talking about being able to get a trademark for anything that is “superX” where X could be literally any word in the dictionary. Its too vague and generic and such an application would almost certainly be rejected.
Supercell, Supergiant, and Supermassive are all trademarkable, and while “super” could cause some confusion, the USPTO doesn’t care so much about that particular point because the wordmarks are all different and the logos are all different.
There is technically nothing stopping a computer software company trademark for “Microstar.” Unless it already exists obviously, but for the sake of argument let’s imagine it doesn’t. Even though the name could cause some confusion with Microsoft, as long as the wordmark and logo design are different they USPTO won’t care.
I have prosecuted plenty of trademarks. The logos and words are separate trademarks. For the word mark alone, Supergiant and Supermassive absolutely are likely to raise an initial LOC rejection in the same exact class of goods and services. It boils down to whether the similar words are likely to leave a confusingly similar market impression upon consumers. I legit think here it would be hard to argue around with a typical examining attorney–but the trademark office has a ton more lattitude in grants than the patent office, so it isn’t out of the question it could’ve been successfully argued or even granted initially.
There is the case of MikeRoweSoft
I mean, mikerowesoft might have a visibly different spelling and logo, but it is audibly pronounced the same. There is a legitimate argument to be made there, no matter how stupid it is. But none of that matters because it was settled out of court. And Microsoft admitted afterward they were too heavy handed in their approach.