First, I think a fair argument can be made the regardless of where their event is held, their market is mma fans. And mma fans are likely to confuse that show as being in someway endorsed by MaximumFC.
Moreover, even if you successfully argued that the defendant's audience was unlikely to be confused, confusion may be demonstrated by showing that the plaintiff's audience is likely to confuse the defendant's good as being a product of or endorsed by the plaintiff. While the Michigan show audience may be locals who know the show is not sponsored by the MaximumFC, the MaximumFC audience is larger and may confuse the two. Again, for example, I first thought this thread was about the MaximumFC.
kidpresentable - First, I think a fair argument can be made the regardless of where their event is held, their market is mma fans. And mma fans are likely to confuse that show as being in someway endorsed by MaximumFC.
Moreover, even if you successfully argued that the defendant's audience was unlikely to be confused, confusion may be demonstrated by showing that the plaintiff's audience is likely to confuse the defendant's good as being a product of or endorsed by the plaintiff. While the Michigan show audience may be locals who know the show is not sponsored by the MaximumFC, the MaximumFC audience is larger and may confuse the two. Again, for example, I first thought this thread was about the MaximumFC.
Current MFCs I am aware of: Michigan Fighting Challenge, MaximumFC, Midwest Fighting Championship, M1's Mix Fight Championships, and there's one in Maine.
Who wins?
None of those that I know of except Maximum Fighting Championships uses "MFC" in a promotional manner. In any case, the MFC doesn't have a claim here as it is not the company using "MFC" but, rather, a fan. My point was simply that you are incorrect to assert that you would have a to have filed "MFC" as a trademark in order to have a trademark on "MFC."
And to answer your question, though this is not the sort of the law I practice, I believe the earliest to use it that can prove confusion.
kidpresentable - None of those that I know of except Maximum Fighting Championships uses "MFC" in a promotional manner. In any case, the MFC doesn't have a claim here as it is not the company using "MFC" but, rather, a fan. My point was simply that you are incorrect to assert that you would have a to have filed "MFC" as a trademark in order to have a trademark on "MFC."
It was explained to me by a patent/trademark lawyer that you cannot trademark an abbreviation until it has extreme market use.
The Mouth -In which case M-1 pulls out the W.kidpresentable - None of those that I know of except Maximum Fighting Championships uses "MFC" in a promotional manner. In any case, the MFC doesn't have a claim here as it is not the company using "MFC" but, rather, a fan. My point was simply that you are incorrect to assert that you would have a to have filed "MFC" as a trademark in order to have a trademark on "MFC."
It was explained to me by a patent/trademark lawyer that you cannot trademark an abbreviation until it has extreme market use.
The Mouth -kidpresentable - None of those that I know of except Maximum Fighting Championships uses "MFC" in a promotional manner. In any case, the MFC doesn't have a claim here as it is not the company using "MFC" but, rather, a fan. My point was simply that you are incorrect to assert that you would have a to have filed "MFC" as a trademark in order to have a trademark on "MFC."
It was explained to me by a patent/trademark lawyer that you cannot trademark an abbreviation until it has extreme market use.
That is correct. You can't file "UFC" as a trademark and prevent non-fighting related businesses from using UFC unless you reach the point of exposure like 7-up. But you can get a usage trademark in a restricted market, for example mma, that would prevent others in that market from using said abbreviation.
Does that make sense? Like I said, I studied this in school pretty extensively but do not practice this type of law currently and may not be explaining it well.
The Mouth -The Mouth -In which case M-1 pulls out the W.kidpresentable - None of those that I know of except Maximum Fighting Championships uses "MFC" in a promotional manner. In any case, the MFC doesn't have a claim here as it is not the company using "MFC" but, rather, a fan. My point was simply that you are incorrect to assert that you would have a to have filed "MFC" as a trademark in order to have a trademark on "MFC."
It was explained to me by a patent/trademark lawyer that you cannot trademark an abbreviation until it has extreme market use.
I have never seen M-1 promote themselves as MFC.
TTT