![]() |
|
|
#21 |
|
Banned
|
Never-Miss No Flash for touch up
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Banned
|
Never-Miss No Flash for touch up
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 87
|
I see you're maybe taking my suggestion on the name(?) Btw: 'No Flash' is a common law trademarked name, owned by Innovation Focus. There's a record in a time lock intellectual property site that establishes it as being created by I.F. before the time of your post. That'll be 5,000.00 U.S., please, for the intellectual property rights. ~
How about Never-Miss No Flash Pro? After all, we're dealing with a professional product here. Or No Flash Pro, from Never-Miss? Whichever, I'm looking forward to trying it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 87
|
Or segment the market - No Flash Pro, and Never-Miss TouchUp. *property of Innovation Focus*
I'm making all kinds of money here. ~ |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Master Drywall
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Mn
Posts: 49
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
Besides, in mega product market we now have, with mega advertising coming from everywhere at everybody, in this instance should........ probably...... stay..... more...... associatively....... descriptive....... of......... #1 benefit being wanted/looked for by user. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
I did a quick check of the U.S. Trademark Office. Both should be okay. Nothing looks to be too 'confusingly similar' (but I don't promise it, especially with such a brief check, so you might want to check it as well). You should be able to start putting 'TM' behind them whenever you'd like (no $ or filing of anything required), to lay 'common law' claim to them, and to impress the natives that you are using 'TM' on them. (Don't use 'R' with a circle till you've spent the money to get them formally checked and registered.) Riggs, You'd potentially have big problems with your 'Hide-A-Spot'. Last edited by JustMe; 04-27-2009 at 11:31 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 87
|
On 2nd thought, No Flash Pro might be considered too close to No Pock Pro, both being in the same category - treating drywall mud. If taken to court, it might be successfully argued buyers could perceive that both came from the same company. 'No Flash' should be okay, though. Neither No Flash or No Pock is a highly 'coined' name, but quite descriptive of the benefit being offered. Intellectual property lawyers usually don't like such, but the buying marketplace often does, especially for things like smaller ticket items. Often makes buying a little easier, when the name tells what the product can do for them.
'No Flash(TM), from Never-Miss - A professional formula for ........' Last edited by JustMe; 04-28-2009 at 07:36 AM. Reason: added clarification |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 397
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 | |
|
Junior Member
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Junior Member
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Junior Member
|
I have ben drywalling for 29 years and I have never seen a string on a spong maby this is a thing from the North. Tell me is it ?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|