"A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict, or immediately commence a lawsuit against every possible infringer."
That directly supports me. Interesting how you seem to be ignoring that.
Let's analyze the phrase carefully.
> A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict.
> and it’s developed a demo game called Nreal Tower.
You, personally, might not confuse this with Unreal but do you think that an average person can differentiate between Epic's product and Nreal's product? (I'm pretty sure though that the answer to that is "I don't care, I don't really play computer/video games.")
> or immediately commence a lawsuit against every possible infringer.
Epic knows that Nreal exists back in 2018
> Epic and Nreal have been quietly fighting over the “Unreal” trademark for years. Epic filed to block Nreal’s trademark in 2018, and the companies discussed a settlement after that. But Epic’s suit claims the discussion was “fruitless.”
In other words, it was already known to them that Nreal exists as a company and they have attempted to settle this previously. In other words, this is a continuation of a 2018 lawsuit.
Honestly? Yes I do.
> In other words, it was already known to them that Nreal exists as a company and they have attempted to settle this previously. In other words, this is a continuation of a 2018 lawsuit.
This doesn't imply Unreal needs to sue. They could change their mind and decide they were wrong. They could have gone through the process and realized that consumers are not really all that confused. They could decide that Nreal isn't infringing on Unreal. These are all possible outcomes. They are making the _choice_ to sue. They might lose the lawsuit and might later with the benefit of more hindsight decide that they should have dropped the whole issue from day 1.
