The company enforcing their trademark has not trademarked the word “Hoarder” and evidently they won anyway. So I guess it isn’t really a truism, and “having a case” is more arbitrary than you seem to think.
U think you’re just pointing out that trademark law doesn’t work the way a reasonable person would assume. I agree, it’s crazy. But if they won, then it was relevant to their trademark (somehow), and failure to bring relevant cases can lead to losing it.
So yes, it’s weird and sketchy and feels morally wrong. But also yes, it’s required and expected legally.
If they had no case they lost. If they have a case, they win.
It’s a truism.
The company enforcing their trademark has not trademarked the word “Hoarder” and evidently they won anyway. So I guess it isn’t really a truism, and “having a case” is more arbitrary than you seem to think.
U think you’re just pointing out that trademark law doesn’t work the way a reasonable person would assume. I agree, it’s crazy. But if they won, then it was relevant to their trademark (somehow), and failure to bring relevant cases can lead to losing it.
So yes, it’s weird and sketchy and feels morally wrong. But also yes, it’s required and expected legally.