The first user [the smaller company] is virtually always the prevailing party in any trademark litigation.
The doctrine of reverse confusion is intended to enable small, senior users to protect their trademark rights against junior users whose marks have gained commercial strength through extensive marketing.
reverse confusion can be a powerful weapon in the arsenal of lesser known companies in terms of protecting their trademark rights and as leverage against larger users.
Sorry, yes you're right. I should've read the link I posted, I just assumed it would be the same as how its treated in New Zealand. Obviously reverse confusion is dealt differently in different parts of the world.
Looks like US treats reverse confusion as if it were simply direct confusion. I'm pretty sure that's not the case where I live.
The first user [the smaller company] is virtually always the prevailing party in any trademark litigation.
The doctrine of reverse confusion is intended to enable small, senior users to protect their trademark rights against junior users whose marks have gained commercial strength through extensive marketing.
reverse confusion can be a powerful weapon in the arsenal of lesser known companies in terms of protecting their trademark rights and as leverage against larger users.