Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-hole
The case discussed in that article was not an issue of potentially confusing trademarks and had a lot to do with free expression. Not the case here.
|
The case being discussed was used to highlight the rules in general. Specifically, the fact that you do not have an obligation to defend against literally every potential infringement. And nobody can reasonably suggest that the use of one word for a product utterly unrelated to hockey and which MLSE does not trade in would result in confusion.
