Support NeoGAF

[mcrommert]

Why is a church filing trademarks?

Prosperity gospel was a mistake.

You really aren't kidding

 

[Frodo]

And they announce this the same day Nintendo announced you will be able to use demonic possession as a mechanic in their new video game Super Mario Odyssey. Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[Vanguard771]

I can understand the frustration on the part of the youth organization. Googling "switch" might have brought up there website at some point, but now that is lost to the popularity/notoriety of the Nintendo Switch.

 

[Luigiv]

Pardon my naivety, but is trademarking common words even legal? I mean, one should be able to tradermak 'ACME Switch', but plain 'switch'? Isn't that one of the reasons for 'MS Windows' and 'nintendo switch' to be called they way they are called, and no just 'windows' and 'switch'.

Apple will crush you with legal fees before we ever find out.

 

[Hyun Sai]

 

[ggx2ac]

Pardon my naivety, but is trademarking common words even legal? I mean, one should be able to tradermak 'ACME Switch', but plain 'switch'? Isn't that one of the reasons for 'MS Windows' and 'nintendo switch' to be called they way they are called, and no just 'windows' and 'switch'.

We need an expert.

There was the thing with 'Edge' being trademarked and it was specifically for video games.

And also Sony tried to trademark 'Let's Play' but apparently the rejection of the trademark was not that it was a common phrase, rather that it was too similar to another trademark called 'Let'z Play' of another gaming company.

But as I was reading those previous articles, It sounds like the equivalent of patent trolls trying to extort money from Nintendo via a settlement. Nintendo's trademark of 'Nintendo Switch' is a video game trademark. That church with the 'Switch' trademark is to do with selling stationary. There's no confusion to be made between the two when looking at the logo and trademark, if there was, there would be no way anyone could even trademark shit without getting sued for having a product with a similar name.

And also, Rosti posted another one before that for Switch:

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1342438

Edit:

Oh I forgot this detail in the OP.

The Nintendo Switch trademark and these marks appear to have in common goods and services related to pens, pencils and the likes. Life Covenant Church, Inc. has been using its mark related to pencils since 2005, and that mark is also on a 1A filing basis (Application based on use in commerce). Nintendo's Switch mark is on a 1B filing basis (Application based on intent to use) however, although Nintendo's mark has an earlier filing date than those of Life Covenant Church, Inc.

 

[Pepboy]

Not gonna fly. Nintendo Switch is trademarked in Video Games and Entertainment, while this is in common goods and music/media. Nice try though

But if they put Nintendo switch trademark on other goods like clothing or console covers or pens, seems like a legal case to me

 

[Weltall Zero]

I'm a Christian but I don't understand how one could get them and Nintendo confused.

 

[Rösti]

On July 21, 2017, Nintendo of America Inc. submitted its answer:

ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION

Applicant Nintendo of America Inc. (“Nintendo”), owner of U.S. Trademark
Application No. 87209606 (“Opposed Application”) for the trademark NINTENDO
SWITCH (“Opposed Mark”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this
answer to the Notice of Opposition filed June 13, 2017 by Life Covenant Church, Inc.
(“Opposer”) as follows:

The preamble contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Nintendo denies the allegations in the preamble.

1. Nintendo lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in paragraph 1, and on that basis denies them.

2. Nintendo lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in paragraph 2, and on that basis denies them.

3. Nintendo lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in paragraph 3, and on that basis denies them.

4. Nintendo admits that Opposer is listed in the USPTO records as the owner of
record of U.S. Registration No. 3,197,701 for the mark SWITCH, the details of which speak
for themselves. Nintendo lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of any remaining allegations in paragraph 4, and on that basis denies them.

5. Nintendo admits that Opposer is listed in the USPTO records as the Nintendo
of record of U.S. Trademark Application Nos. 87/303,178, 87/303,206 and 87/303,251, each
for the mark SWITCH, the details of which speak for themselves. Nintendo lacks knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of all other allegations in paragraph 5,
and on that basis denies them.

6. Nintendo admits that, on October 20, 2016, it filed intent to use Application
Serial No. 87/209,606 to register the Opposed Mark in International Classes 9, 16, 28 and 41
for the goods and services listed in the bullet points in paragraph 6.

7. Nintendo lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in paragraph 7, and on that basis denies them.

8. Nintendo admits that the filing date of the Opposed Application is October 20,
2016, and denies that Nintendo’s earliest use of the Opposed Mark is based on the details set
forth therein. Nintendo lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of any remaining allegations in paragraph 8, and on that basis denies them.

9. The USPTO records for the Opposed Application speak for themselves.
Paragraph 9 otherwise contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Nintendo denies the allegations in paragraph 9. Nintendo lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of all other allegations in
paragraph 9, and on that basis denies them.

10. Paragraph 10 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Nintendo denies the allegations in paragraph 10.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Nintendo further responds by alleging the following affirmative defenses:

1. The Notice of Opposition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

2. The Opposed Mark is not likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive, or to falsely suggest an association with Opposer or its marks.

3. Nintendo reserves the right to amend its Answer to add affirmative defenses
or counterclaims that are not now known but may later become known through discovery or other means.

WHEREFORE, Nintendo requests that Opposer's Notice of Opposition be denied and
that the Opposed Mark be registered on the Principal Register.

Source: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91235038&pty=OPP&eno=4

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

On July 21, 2017, Nintendo of America Inc. submitted its answer:




Source: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91235038&pty=OPP&eno=4

That's a really long-winded way to say "Go fuck yourself."

 

[mugwhump]

On July 21, 2017, Nintendo of America Inc. submitted its answer:




Source: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91235038&pty=OPP&eno=4

Nintendo: idk lol

 

[Rösti]

Some minor updates:

The attorney for the Opposer, Life Covenant Church, Inc., has requested to withdraw as counsel.

Source: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91235038&pty=OPP&eno=5

This was denied:

The Opposer’s motion (filed October 16, 2017) to withdraw as counsel of record in
this proceeding is hereby denied without prejudice because it fails to comply with the
requirements of Trademark Rules 2.19(b) and Patent and Trademark Rule 11.116.

The counsel has 30 days (until November 17, 2017) to submit a motion which complies with Trademark Rules 2.19(b) and Patent and Trademark Rule 11.116.

Source: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91235038&pty=OPP&eno=6

Nothing big, but I thought it was worthy a mention.