Hasbro claimed for trademark dilution

Hasbro claimed for trademark dilution

Hasbro claimed for trademark dilution since his business with that of the Internet entertainment Group was in a very different business genre. The ruling of the court granted preliminary injunction over Hasbro motion. This is because the use of the mark Candy Land caused harm to Hasbro, since he is the legal owner of the mark. The use of the mark by the defendants Internet Group tarnished Hasbro reputation through consumer perception on thHasbro claimed for trademark dilution since his business with that of the Internet entertainment Group was in a very different business genre. The ruling of the court granted preliminary injunction over Hasbro motion. This is because the use of the mark Candy Land caused harm to Hasbro, since he is the legal owner of the mark. The use of the mark by the defendants Internet Group tarnished Hasbro reputation through consumer perception on the company’s association with pornography explicit site. Consequently, being that the services Internet Entertainment Group offered with that of Hasbro did not directly compete, claiming on trademark dilution was way to easier for Hasbro. In this case however, trademark infringement does not apply for both businesses since there is a low likelihood of consumers mistaking candy land of toys to candy land the pornography site.e company’s association with pornography explicit site. Consequently, being that the services Internet Entertainment Group offered with that of Hasbro did not directly compete, claiming on trademark dilution was way to easier for Hasbro. In this case however, trademark infringement does not apply for both businesses since there is a low likelihood of consumers mistaking candy land of toys to candy land the pornography site.