KPop Demon Hunters was a resounding success for Netflix, coming out of nowhere to become the platform’s most-watched movie of all time and spawning several of last year’s biggest pop hits. It was less of a success for Demon Hunter, the Christian metal band that presumably has been getting mogged in the search bar ever…
A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
My statement:
The thing is a trademark can’t trademark something “generic”.
Like you can’t trademark “chocolate dreams” ans a name for a band… and the go after some one that uses the phrase “chocolate dreams” for an unrelated movie.
Because no one is likely to confuse the band for the movie.
to which they replied:
Generic is not what you think. You’re trying to make the case that all words in the dictionary are generic. I’m sorry you’re just wrong about this.
Which absolutely is not what I was trying to say. So yes. They misrepresented my argument. Are you trying to say they didn’t attack it?
Further… My response to them, which you replied to with out apparently reading.
First off there’s a reason I put it in quotes.
and that reason was because I knew pedantic idiots like you would conflate the word “generic” with with the legal term “generic trademark.” The argument that I’m making is that “demon hunter” is common enough that it’s not particularly specific; and that further, no one is likely to be confused between the two.
And the USPTO agreed- more or less- when they gave netflix a trademark for “KPop Demon Hunter”- because checking for potential conflicts is part of the process.
by ‘generic’ I meant that you can’t trademark something thats generic- Like I can’t open a shop at the State Fair and trademark “turkey legs” because I’m selling shoes that look like turkey feet and then go after the people selling roasted turkey legs.
Does that make sense? they probably would reject that trademark, actually. Or require it be more specific.
Just so you know, they didn’t provide a straw man argument (which is necessarily a weakened position[hence straw]), they provided a statement of fact. Source: degree study in logic and philosophy.
You could respond that you found the fact irrelevant, but it seemed apposite and insightful to me.
I knew pedantic idiots like you would conflate the word “generic” with with the legal term “generic trademark.”
You mean people who know trade mark law would challenge your incorrect use of generic. There’s no such thing as a “generic trademark”, fwiw, though I realise you’re unwilling to learn.
I can’t open a shop at the State Fair and trademark “turkey legs” because I’m selling shoes that look like turkey feet
Yh, you’ve still got it wrong. You 100% can do this, because a trade mark applies in a trading category (except for ‘famous’ marks). So Apple Music can have a trade mark of “Apple” for selling goods in the music category (famously infringed by Apple Computers), etc., but cannot have a trade mark for selling things with the mark Apple that covers fruit sales, say; because “Apple” is not distinctive in that field of industry. Actually applications are in something called a Nice class (though AIUI there is a specific classification USPTO use that is narrower than the international Nice class).
There’s a close example to your “turkey leg” - for 6 years “ham hock” (ie pig leg) was a registered trade mark, https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/77579235. Why was it allowed? Well because it was for a board game, class 028, and so didn’t stop people from selling actual ham hocks.
I’m not 100% on trade marks in USA, but “confusion” in trade mark law usually has a specific test before the law that is not the same as merely requiring that consumers be confused. Like genericisation, confusion does not have its common meaning when discussing trade marks.
It’s interesting.
from wikipedia a straw man fallacy is :
My statement:
to which they replied:
Which absolutely is not what I was trying to say. So yes. They misrepresented my argument. Are you trying to say they didn’t attack it?
Further… My response to them, which you replied to with out apparently reading.
and that reason was because I knew pedantic idiots like you would conflate the word “generic” with with the legal term “generic trademark.” The argument that I’m making is that “demon hunter” is common enough that it’s not particularly specific; and that further, no one is likely to be confused between the two.
And the USPTO agreed- more or less- when they gave netflix a trademark for “KPop Demon Hunter”- because checking for potential conflicts is part of the process.
by ‘generic’ I meant that you can’t trademark something thats generic- Like I can’t open a shop at the State Fair and trademark “turkey legs” because I’m selling shoes that look like turkey feet and then go after the people selling roasted turkey legs.
Does that make sense? they probably would reject that trademark, actually. Or require it be more specific.
Just so you know, they didn’t provide a straw man argument (which is necessarily a weakened position[hence straw]), they provided a statement of fact. Source: degree study in logic and philosophy.
You could respond that you found the fact irrelevant, but it seemed apposite and insightful to me.
You mean people who know trade mark law would challenge your incorrect use of generic. There’s no such thing as a “generic trademark”, fwiw, though I realise you’re unwilling to learn.
Yh, you’ve still got it wrong. You 100% can do this, because a trade mark applies in a trading category (except for ‘famous’ marks). So Apple Music can have a trade mark of “Apple” for selling goods in the music category (famously infringed by Apple Computers), etc., but cannot have a trade mark for selling things with the mark Apple that covers fruit sales, say; because “Apple” is not distinctive in that field of industry. Actually applications are in something called a Nice class (though AIUI there is a specific classification USPTO use that is narrower than the international Nice class).
There’s a close example to your “turkey leg” - for 6 years “ham hock” (ie pig leg) was a registered trade mark, https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/77579235. Why was it allowed? Well because it was for a board game, class 028, and so didn’t stop people from selling actual ham hocks.
I’m not 100% on trade marks in USA, but “confusion” in trade mark law usually has a specific test before the law that is not the same as merely requiring that consumers be confused. Like genericisation, confusion does not have its common meaning when discussing trade marks.