> Trademarks don't work like that. Prior use for trade is an absolute defence in most jurisdictions (though I'm not intimately familiar with USA) and is most likely a reason to invalidate the latecomer's trade mark.
I didn't say the OP doesn't have a case against the invalidation of the trademark. I'm saying that if they choose to do nothing it may erode their case for invalidating the trademark in the future, or at best their competitor will be able to keep using the infringing mark. It's why trademarks get viciously defended by companies like Facebook, even in seemingly minor infractions.
> Them badgering you, and a trademark attorney misrepresenting the situation could be reason for a countersuit by itself. Certainly I'd discuss that if they do enlist some representation.
Anything to do with suing will cost in the upper tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of US dollars. A cancellation is easily done and relatively cheap though.
I didn't say the OP doesn't have a case against the invalidation of the trademark. I'm saying that if they choose to do nothing it may erode their case for invalidating the trademark in the future, or at best their competitor will be able to keep using the infringing mark. It's why trademarks get viciously defended by companies like Facebook, even in seemingly minor infractions.
" If you don't take steps to prevent others from using your marks, you could lose your trademark rights." https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-common-law-trade...
> Them badgering you, and a trademark attorney misrepresenting the situation could be reason for a countersuit by itself. Certainly I'd discuss that if they do enlist some representation.
Anything to do with suing will cost in the upper tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of US dollars. A cancellation is easily done and relatively cheap though.