Sadly, he does seem to have gotten it trademarked. That LLC owns a “Mug Club” which I presume is Crowder’s.
How this was trademarked, I have no idea, but if it’s used satirically (as in thrown back in his face) I don’t see how a lawsuit prevails - generally this is only merited if CNN started using it directly for a personality on their network or a show name, etc.
I don’t see how it prevails regardless. It’s generic when used for a debate, no reasonable consumer would assume it was a brand indicator at all, and even if they did no reasonable consumer would assume this debate was signed off on by him.
That’s insane. It’s just a basic concept of debate. An extremely generic phrase. It’s like trademarking “haha”. I suspect it will be tested more thoroughly in court than at the trademark office.
Sadly, he does seem to have gotten it trademarked. That LLC owns a “Mug Club” which I presume is Crowder’s.
How this was trademarked, I have no idea, but if it’s used satirically (as in thrown back in his face) I don’t see how a lawsuit prevails - generally this is only merited if CNN started using it directly for a personality on their network or a show name, etc.
I don’t see how it prevails regardless. It’s generic when used for a debate, no reasonable consumer would assume it was a brand indicator at all, and even if they did no reasonable consumer would assume this debate was signed off on by him.
That’s insane. It’s just a basic concept of debate. An extremely generic phrase. It’s like trademarking “haha”. I suspect it will be tested more thoroughly in court than at the trademark office.
They should push to overturn it.