DescentBB

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:02 pm**

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regs ... y=74527218

So interplay owns the trade mark, I believe.

And...

http://louisville.edu/faculty/ddking01/ ... Hasbro.htm

...in this case the trade mark owner was able to sue the owners of candyland.com and win. Candy Land is a currently used trademarked product, not abandoned. Candyland.com now routes to Hasbro.

Dear wise Internet people, can Interplay get descent.com with this method?

edit:
Ooops... missed this part.

Current Status: Registration cancelled because registrant did not file an acceptable declaration under Section 8. To view all documents in this file, click on the Trademark Document Retrieval link at the top of this page.

Once more. Hypothetically, if Interplay still owned the trademark, could they have acquired Descent.com by suing?

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:35 pm**

not really. interplay hasn't made use of the trademark in a while, and unlike candyland, descent is a pretty generic term.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:48 pm**

That's exactly why it would lose. I agree.
On the other hand, perhaps on appeal, the fact that the word has secondary meaning might be enough to win. This forum is proof of that.

In the U.S., if a trademark has been used for a continuous period of at least five years after the date of registration, the right to use the mark and the registration may become "incontestable" (e.g. invulnerable to cancellation for non-use, but not for becoming generic). In such cases the USPTO checks and confirm whether the request for incontestability meets formality requirements, but whether a registration is incontestable at law can only be determined during legal proceedings involving the registration.

DescentBB

domain question on descent.com

domain question on descent.com

Re: domain question on descent.com

Re: domain question on descent.com