Wait, they lost the what now?
If Nintendo had Disney's lawyers, would they have won?
If Nintendo had Disney's lawyers, would they have won?
Imagine not getting it trademarked for everything.You can't get it trademarked for "everything" - you need to specify the exact things you want your trademark to apply to and trademarks are not cheap. In the US, for instance, the cost is $350 per trademark per class of goods or services, and that's not a one-time fee either - you need to renew it periodically and the renewal fees are (bizarrely) more expensive than the initial filing (currently $650 per class of goods or services).
https://www.techspot.com/news/106591-super-mario-supermarket-costa-rica-wins-trademark-dispute.html
Suing some random ass local supermarket is so weird to meThe way I understand it, they have to defend their trademark or it will set a precedent.
The way I understand it, they have to defend their trademark or it will set a precedent.Except this isn't even remotely close to that. They are just stupid.
Charlito shared a video celebrating his father, the eponymous Don Mario, whose 52 years of running the supermarket had finally garnered some hard-earned recognition.
If Nintendo had Disney's lawyers, would they have won?
I'm not at all shocked that Nintendo lost this. This seems like the standard kind of trademark lawsuit that happens all of the time when a company wants to make sure they don't risk losing their trademark, even though they are pretty sure they are going to lose the specific case, because it's something they can later point to in order to show that they are indeed protective of their trademarks.
So it's older than Nintendo's Mario?
The saga began last year when the supermarket, established in 2013 under the name "Super Mario," renewed its trademark registration.
No one walks into this store and thinks of the Super Mario Bros. there was no Nintendo imagery around the only thing relating this to Mario is the name and that's it. Part of trademark law I understand is that it's there to prevent confusion so if I wanted to make a video game named Super Mario Bros. even if it was completely different I would face an easily won lawsuit.
Meanwhile this guy opened up a random grocery store with the name he is not in the same thing at all.
If there was even ONE person who entered that supermarket because of the name resembling the Nintendo franchise then they profited from Nintendo's IP and should be punished from it.That's... really not the rationale behind trademark law...
The supermarket itself is probably older than Mario the character, but the name isn't
If Nintendo had Disney's lawyers, would they have won?To be fair, Nintendo is one of the few companies out there to rival Disney in litigiousness
as a result Starry was bornStarry exists because Sierra Mist was unpopular and this is like the third time they've reformulated their lemon lime drink, it has nothing to do with trademark issues.
I'm not at all shocked that Nintendo lost this. This seems like the standard kind of trademark lawsuit that happens all of the time when a company wants to make sure they don't risk losing their trademark, even though they are pretty sure they are going to lose the specific case, because it's something they can later point to in order to show that they are indeed protective of their trademarks.
I'm not at all shocked that Nintendo lost this. This seems like the standard kind of trademark lawsuit that happens all of the time when a company wants to make sure they don't risk losing their trademark, even though they are pretty sure they are going to lose the specific case, because it's something they can later point to in order to show that they are indeed protective of their trademarks.
To be fair, Nintendo is one of the few companies out there to rival Disney in litigiousness