▲ 804 ▼ Gotta Catch 'Em All (mander.xyz) submitted 9 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jmill@lemmy.zip 10 points 9 months ago (1 child) Yeah, drug names and Pokémon names are running into the same problem. They can't reuse them, and there are so many already. Actually, I suppose a name being used for a drug or a Pokémon precludes it from being used for the other, so it is a very shared issue, lol. Wonder how far they have to reserve names in advance to prevent overlap. A Nintendo vs GSK court case for a name would be less absurd than many news stories this year. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] booly@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago Actually, I suppose a name being used for a drug or a Pokémon precludes it from being used for the other, so it is a very shared issue, lol. Theoretically, unrelated trademarks can have the exact same name in different fields, owned by completely different owners, but that generally only applies to trademarks that are regular words that are already in use: Apple Computer versus Apple Music (which the Beatles owned and ended up selling to Apple Computer), Monster Energy Drink versus Monster Cable versus Monster Jobs, Dove soap versus Dove chocolate, etc. Still, the law looks to likelihood of customer confusion, and maybe it would be too confusing to have a Pokemon named Ozempic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jmill@lemmy.zip 10 points 9 months ago (1 child) Yeah, drug names and Pokémon names are running into the same problem. They can't reuse them, and there are so many already. Actually, I suppose a name being used for a drug or a Pokémon precludes it from being used for the other, so it is a very shared issue, lol. Wonder how far they have to reserve names in advance to prevent overlap. A Nintendo vs GSK court case for a name would be less absurd than many news stories this year. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] booly@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago Actually, I suppose a name being used for a drug or a Pokémon precludes it from being used for the other, so it is a very shared issue, lol. Theoretically, unrelated trademarks can have the exact same name in different fields, owned by completely different owners, but that generally only applies to trademarks that are regular words that are already in use: Apple Computer versus Apple Music (which the Beatles owned and ended up selling to Apple Computer), Monster Energy Drink versus Monster Cable versus Monster Jobs, Dove soap versus Dove chocolate, etc. Still, the law looks to likelihood of customer confusion, and maybe it would be too confusing to have a Pokemon named Ozempic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago Actually, I suppose a name being used for a drug or a Pokémon precludes it from being used for the other, so it is a very shared issue, lol. Theoretically, unrelated trademarks can have the exact same name in different fields, owned by completely different owners, but that generally only applies to trademarks that are regular words that are already in use: Apple Computer versus Apple Music (which the Beatles owned and ended up selling to Apple Computer), Monster Energy Drink versus Monster Cable versus Monster Jobs, Dove soap versus Dove chocolate, etc. Still, the law looks to likelihood of customer confusion, and maybe it would be too confusing to have a Pokemon named Ozempic. permalink fedilink source parent
