Trademark law is weird and complicated. Still, there has to be a cause for people to assume the infringing work will be confusing to the public. Maybe the company thinks it will lose customers if someone with an “alternative lifestyle” is thought to be some kind of mascot or associate.
I wish you had read the rest of the article, Jason! They're suing for $1, they have a previous agreement with Pattie, and all they're asking is that Pattie not register the trademark or sell things in their category. That seems pretty benign and adult. You can disagree, but why leave that out of the article?
Trademark law is weird and complicated. Still, there has to be a cause for people to assume the infringing work will be confusing to the public. Maybe the company thinks it will lose customers if someone with an “alternative lifestyle” is thought to be some kind of mascot or associate.
Maybe Argentina should claim sole use of the name Patagonia and sue the US-based clothing company.
certainly its image and likeness
I wish you had read the rest of the article, Jason! They're suing for $1, they have a previous agreement with Pattie, and all they're asking is that Pattie not register the trademark or sell things in their category. That seems pretty benign and adult. You can disagree, but why leave that out of the article?