Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

trucorsair t1_iz08xzn wrote

Well they have to defend their trademark, an argument could be made that there is little chance of confusion, but still this is not that unusual per se and let’s be honest, that name wasn’t chosen by chance. I am sure when they incorporated they were warned about this but now just think of the free publicity. They will change their name and the suit will be dropped.

16

Aggravating_Poet_675 t1_iz1mr9o wrote

Copyright and trademark often doesn't count when the business is completely separate from the existing entity. So if say someone opens up Big Dave's as a Pizzeria in Miami, FL and there's already a landscaping company in Tampa, FL called Big Dave's then they're not likely to get punished under trademark laws or even if there's another Big Dave's Pizzeria in Atlanta, GA. The markets don't overlap. So there isn't any case. However, if there was already a Big Dave's Pizzeria in Miami than that original company could indeed make a Case that the new location stole their name and is unfairly profiting off of that name because of it.

This particular xase may be different however as it's quite possible that they could prove that the flower shop knowingly used the name to profit off of the band's success which is generally why Copyright laws were created to begin with.

7

trucorsair t1_iz1sg8j wrote

This is America where you can sue over anything. The cost to the gun and florist shop to put up even a minimum defense is going to outweigh any “victory” as the time and cost will bankrupt them. G n’ R by zealously defending their marks will deter others. In China there is a saying “kill the chicken to scare the monkey”. Same principle

6

legend_number_1 t1_iz0aj3r wrote

Weapons n Flowers

3