Ordinarily since Fling the dating site and Fling the chocolate are non-competing industries I would say there's no dispute. But clearly the chocolate maker is going after a certain degree of 'naughtiness' with their sales pitch that I actually think Fling has a legitimate claim to a C&D and/or other legal actions.
Especially because the chocolate company is putting a TM behind the Fling name, that really is pushing the limit and clearly a lot.
Definitely a good claim for Fling to send their lawyers after them.
WG
Ordinarily since Fling the dating site and Fling the chocolate are non-competing industries I would say there's no dispute. But clearly the chocolate maker is going after a certain degree of 'naughtiness' with their sales pitch that I actually think Fling has a legitimate claim to a C&D and/or other legal actions.
Especially because the chocolate company is putting a TM behind the Fling name, that really is pushing the limit and clearly a lot.
Definitely a good claim for Fling to send their lawyers after them.
WG
complicated case, depends on what branches is the trademark registered for etc.
you know, Im sure Mars looked ahead what the keyword results would be, and I wouldnt be suprised if they named it fling on purpose
They definitely knew about it in advance if they're parading Fling (TM), they must have done a USPTO search and seen Fling's trademark for adult dating so either Mars has really bad lawyers (not likely) or they saw no threat to entering the market with the same name. Definitely interesting to see what happens.
WG
Comment