[joshuat]

> - 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?

[ummonk]

Right if a company wanted their trademark of “Deepki” to coexist with this trademark of “Deepkit” then that is perfectly reasonable, and OP just experienced FAFO for trying to extort them.

[thaumasiotes]

> Right if a company wanted their trademark of “Deepki” to coexist with this trademark of “Deepkit” then that is perfectly reasonable

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".

[_rkcg]

No, initially they tried to trademark "Deepki" in the US. It was not me blocking that, the USPTO itself decided to block the application on the grounds of "likelihood of confusion" to which Deepki could have appealed, but they did not. I assume it's so blatantly similar, that even the USPTO clerk decided to block it right from the start.

[joshuat]

I understand for the US trademark, I'm asking about the EU trademark. If they weren't trying to trademark "Deepkit" why would you feel the need to attempt to block it? It feels unnecessarily hostile.

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.