Thing is you need to be able to interpret the results, understand how Vienna Classification works, what the limitations are on others names, et cetera.
In the case at issue I'm surprised that the US trademark system allows a mere geographic location as this seems to lack distinctiveness: The mark has to be an indicator of the originating company and the name of an area, when that area is close or coincident with the companies operation region, tends away from the use of a mark for such purposes.
Perhaps the specific form of the mark is what's registered in which case one may need only use a different presentation of the text, eg different font, to avoid conflict.
Marketing materials that fall in to someone else's registration classification area must be a known case; I'd be surprised if the courts were to follow the line of it being considered infringing as it's clearly not - in the general case - a genuine infringement and the chance of confusion has to infinitesimal.
http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_SearchBasi...
Thing is you need to be able to interpret the results, understand how Vienna Classification works, what the limitations are on others names, et cetera.
In the case at issue I'm surprised that the US trademark system allows a mere geographic location as this seems to lack distinctiveness: The mark has to be an indicator of the originating company and the name of an area, when that area is close or coincident with the companies operation region, tends away from the use of a mark for such purposes.
Perhaps the specific form of the mark is what's registered in which case one may need only use a different presentation of the text, eg different font, to avoid conflict.
Marketing materials that fall in to someone else's registration classification area must be a known case; I'd be surprised if the courts were to follow the line of it being considered infringing as it's clearly not - in the general case - a genuine infringement and the chance of confusion has to infinitesimal.