> - They tried to register in EU later, which I tried to block under the same "likelihood of confusion" ground.
I might have misread - did they initially try and trademark "Deepki" or "Deepkit" when you attempted to block it?
I might have misread - did they initially try and trademark "Deepki" or "Deepkit" when you attempted to block it?
What kind of world do you live in?
It's no more reasonable for a product to trade under "Deepki" in the presence of the established mark "Deepkit" than it would be to name a school "Stamford University".
I think this is the key point, according to EU it is not
In neither case is it relevant to the idea that it is "reasonable" for Deepki to desire to use their mark in coexistence with the mark "Deepkit". Your argument is that they didn't want coexistence because the other mark didn't exist.
Deepki was created in 2015. Deepkit was created in 2018.
Deepki is an ESG company that has nothing to do with Typescript server frameworks (i.e. Deepkit).
There's no confusion when searching the names, and there's no confusion when pronouncing them either - "Deepki" ends in a long ee sound while "Deepkit" uses the short i sound followed by a t.
I'm not claiming their response is any better, but I don't know anything about trademark issuance in the EU so I won't speak on that.
IANAL and dont really know, but my understanding is many places require you to defend it in order to keep it. If you become aware of something and fail to try and block it, that can be viewed as you've lost interest in the trademark and result in it being taken away from you.