• Snot Flickerman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In law, dilution refers to the use of a trademark or trade name in commerce that is sufficiently similar to a famous mark that by association it confuses or diminishes the public’s perception of the famous mark.

      In dilution, confusion literally is the issue. The point is: literally fucking nobody would be confused.

      Just ask Apple Music how well that went fighting Apple Computers for 40 fucking years or so.

      It ended with Apple Music putting all the Beatles music catalogue on iTunes.

      Nobody was ever confused about Apple Music and Apple Computers.

      Just like nobody would be confused by this, considering it has no relation to LOTR other than a name.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, I’m only familiar with US law on the subject. NZ might see things differently.

        But in the US, dilution of a famous mark doesn’t necessarily mean confusion. For example, you couldn’t use Apple’s famous white apple logo even for a company that had nothing to do with technology.

        • Snot Flickerman
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          This isn’t about logos though. This is about the name of the company, which is why I referenced two companies with similar names who had never been confused.

          Because yes it’s more easy to be confused if it’s got a trademarked corporate logo somewhere it’s not supposed to be.

          It’s not as easy to be confused just because the names are similar. Nobody was going to show up to Lord of the Wings thinking that it was a JRR Tolkein property when the only thing that came close to referencing it was the name, and the name alone.

          It’s not like the Elves offered the Hobbits fucking chicken wings instead of lembas.

            • Snot Flickerman
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              And this trademark is a phrase, which is not easily confused with another phrase, when taken in context.

              Are you being willfully fucking obtuse? We’re not talking about other trademarks we’re talking about this situation.

              If you want to go discuss the entirety of trademark law, go for it, somewhere else, please. This is a conversation about a specific incident, which specifically doesn’t include logos and symbols. It uses a phrase that clearly isn’t confusing in respect to LOTR.

              The wing truck wasn’t going to have an effigy of the Hobbits on Mt Doom on it. Literally only the name even came close to referencing it. It’s a joke of a trademark dispute and you know it.

              • Melllvar@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                As I’ve been trying to explain, confusion is not the only basis for a trademark claim.

                Are you being willfully fucking obtuse?

                No. And I have no interest in discussing this with you further if you can’t do so respectfully.